WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


posts: 1912

pc:
> Negation. Species are virtually a stone wall to negation. The fact that lo
> broda does not mingle with lo brode does not mean that it mingles with the
> complement of lo brode, for it may have no specimens at all. Similarly, the
> fact that lo broda does not intersect with lo brode – even if it does have
> specimens – does not mean that it intersects with the complement, for
> neither side may have made it up to the break point for either species (the
> rules require that zero specimens mingling cannot be intersection and all
> specimens mingling is intersection, but does not limit the choices in
> between). In the opposite direction, the fact that lo broda mingles or
> intersects with the complement of lo brode does not mean that it may not do
> so with le brode itself; the break point may be below 0.5. So, negation
> passes through species talk in neither direction.

That's all unobjectionable, but we may be thinking of different
things by "pass through negation".

All I mean by that is that ordering the terms {lo broda naku brode}
and {naku lo broda cu brode} gives both times the same meaning,
namely that lo broda does not mingle with brode. "brodas don't brode",
"it is not the case that brodas brode").

To say what lo broda does with the complement of brode I have
to use {na'e brode}, i.e. lo broda does/doesn't mingle with
non-brode. ("brodas are/aren't non-brodes".)

You seem to be taking {naku brode} as equivalent to {na'e brode}.
Do you extend that to {brode naku} as well? How do you read
{lo broda cu brode naku}? I take {naku}, wherever it occurs, as
a negation that the relationship brode holds, not as modifying the
relationship.

My other objection is the ever recurring one about existential import:

> First, quantifiers apply only to existents; an unnegated quantifier on a
> species that has no specimens automatically generates falsehood.

I would say "a particular quantifier" instead of "an unnegated
quantifier", but it doesn't really matter in practice. We hardly
ever quantify over nonexistents in contexts where they are
nonexistents.

Other than that, nice story!

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


posts: 2388

A>Well, that is never what I meant by {lo broda naku brode}, nor does it seem to be what CLL nor common sense would have it mean. The {na'e} doesn't work since {na'e} is not contradictory negation but only contrary (well, you can change that too, but then you have to get a new contrary and on and on).

B> See above. I never can figure out what I mean by {ta brode naku}; I tend to take it as the same as {ta na brode} (i.e. {naku ta cu brode}) when there is nothing following it in the sentence and to negate only what follows it if there is something there. Your way of soing things makes life a lot easier, fo course, but it ain't Lojban and it leaves a lot unsaid. I say: suck it up and learn how to do quantifiers (I know you do, so the point is merely rhetorical).

C>Well, we have been through this way too often. Suffice to say, I am here borrowing from logic books and so keep the assumptions of logic. I think it is probably the case that I need that for some of the details in the application of the theory as well, but I suspect I could work arounf that if there were any reason to.

I am hoping to see a similarly throrough (and probably clearer) version of this for xorlo (but I have been asking for that for years now).
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Negation. Species are virtually a stone wall to negation. The fact that lo
> broda does not mingle with lo brode does not mean that it mingles with the
> complement of lo brode, for it may have no specimens at all. Similarly, the
> fact that lo broda does not intersect with lo brode – even if it does have
> specimens – does not mean that it intersects with the complement, for
> neither side may have made it up to the break point for either species (the
> rules require that zero specimens mingling cannot be intersection and all
> specimens mingling is intersection, but does not limit the choices in
> between). In the opposite direction, the fact that lo broda mingles or
> intersects with the complement of lo brode does not mean that it may not do
> so with le brode itself; the break point may be below 0.5. So, negation
> passes through species talk in neither direction.

That's all unobjectionable, but we may be thinking of different
things by "pass through negation".

A>All I mean by that is that ordering the terms {lo broda naku brode}
and {naku lo broda cu brode} gives both times the same meaning,
namely that lo broda does not mingle with brode. "brodas don't brode",
"it is not the case that brodas brode").

To say what lo broda does with the complement of brode I have
to use {na'e brode}, i.e. lo broda does/doesn't mingle with
non-brode. ("brodas are/aren't non-brodes".)

B>You seem to be taking {naku brode} as equivalent to {na'e brode}.
Do you extend that to {brode naku} as well? How do you read
{lo broda cu brode naku}? I take {naku}, wherever it occurs, as
a negation that the relationship brode holds, not as modifying the
relationship.

My other objection is the ever recurring one about existential import:

> First, quantifiers apply only to existents; an unnegated quantifier on a
> species that has no specimens automatically generates falsehood.

C>I would say "a particular quantifier" instead of "an unnegated
quantifier", but it doesn't really matter in practice. We hardly
ever quantify over nonexistents in contexts where they are
nonexistents.

Other than that, nice story!

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo





posts: 1912

pc:
> And all of this does what? Well, assuming that we use {lo broda} to talk
> about the species Broda, then strictly speaking {lo broda} ought to occur
> only in sentences involving specimens, intersections, minglings, inclusions,
> loci, overlaps and perversions (for none of which concepts does Lojban have
> an adequate expression at the moment).

Maybe {malselcinse} for one of those... :-)

zo'o u'i

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 1912

pc:
> Well, that is never what I meant by {lo broda naku brode}, nor does it seem
> to be what CLL nor common sense would have it mean. The {na'e} doesn't work
> since {na'e} is not contradictory negation but only contrary (well, you can
> change that too, but then you have to get a new contrary and on and on).

I don't know what you mean by {naku broda} then.

How do you read:

ko'a ko'e naku broda

a) The relationship broda(ko'a, ko'e) does not hold, i.e.
NOT broda(ko'a, ko'e)
b) There is a relationship, other than broda, that holds between
ko'a and ko'e. i.e. non-broda(ko'a, ko'e)

Is there a third possibility that I'm missing?

If you read it as b), then I don't think that's what CLL or common
sense would have it mean. If as a), then you agree with me, but then
the position of {naku} in the sentence is irrelevant.

Or better still, to give an example with what you say are the
only possible constants:

roda rode zo'u da de naku broda

Is that:

a) for every x and every y, NOT broda(x,y)
b) for every x and every y, other-than-broda(x,y)
c) something else?

> I never can figure out what I mean by {ta brode naku}; I tend
> to take it as the same as {ta na brode} (i.e. {naku ta cu brode}) when there
> is nothing following it in the sentence and to negate only what follows it if
> there is something there.

Then for you {naku lo broda cu brode} = {lo broda cu brode naku}, but
they are both different from {lo broda naku brode}?

> Your way of soing things makes life a lot easier,
> fo course, but it ain't Lojban and it leaves a lot unsaid.

I disagree it ain't Lojban. What does it leave unsaid?

> I am hoping to see a similarly throrough (and probably clearer) version of
> this for xorlo (but I have been asking for that for years now).

Aside from that point about naku in front of the selbri (and I don't
understand what you mean by it, if not na'e), and the minor point
about the import of quantifiers, everything you present seems to map
to the proposal as far as I can understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

A>The contradictory property of {broda}, the proerty has by everything that does not have broda.
B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes through.

C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL, as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

D> As far as I can tell, yes.

E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

F>Then why mess around with Mr Bunny for the last xty x years? (But you really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never see why.)

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Well, that is never what I meant by {lo broda naku brode}, nor does it seem
> to be what CLL nor common sense would have it mean. The {na'e} doesn't work
> since {na'e} is not contradictory negation but only contrary (well, you can
> change that too, but then you have to get a new contrary and on and on).
A>I don't know what you mean by {naku broda} then.

How do you read:

B> ko'a ko'e naku broda

a) The relationship broda(ko'a, ko'e) does not hold, i.e.
NOT broda(ko'a, ko'e)
b) There is a relationship, other than broda, that holds between
ko'a and ko'e. i.e. non-broda(ko'a, ko'e)

Is there a third possibility that I'm missing?

If you read it as b), then I don't think that's what CLL or common
sense would have it mean. If as a), then you agree with me, but then
the position of {naku} in the sentence is irrelevant.

Or better still, to give an example with what you say are the
only possible constants:

C>roda rode zo'u da de naku broda

Is that:

a) for every x and every y, NOT broda(x,y)
b) for every x and every y, other-than-broda(x,y)
c) something else?

> I never can figure out what I mean by {ta brode naku}; I tend
> to take it as the same as {ta na brode} (i.e. {naku ta cu brode}) when there
> is nothing following it in the sentence and to negate only what follows it if
> there is something there.

D>Then for you {naku lo broda cu brode} = {lo broda cu brode naku}, but
they are both different from {lo broda naku brode}?

> Your way of soing things makes life a lot easier,
> fo course, but it ain't Lojban and it leaves a lot unsaid.

E>I disagree it ain't Lojban. What does it leave unsaid?

> I am hoping to see a similarly throrough (and probably clearer) version of
> this for xorlo (but I have been asking for that for years now).

F>Aside from that point about naku in front of the selbri (and I don't
understand what you mean by it, if not na'e), and the minor point
about the import of quantifiers, everything you present seems to map
to the proposal as far as I can understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail





posts: 2388

Oops! You know I am a terrible typist, but now you know where my mind wanders to as .well
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:pc:
> And all of this does what? Well, assuming that we use {lo broda} to talk
> about the species Broda, then strictly speaking {lo broda} ought to occur
> only in sentences involving specimens, intersections, minglings, inclusions,
> loci, overlaps and perversions (for none of which concepts does Lojban have
> an adequate expression at the moment).

Maybe {malselcinse} for one of those... :-)

zo'o u'i

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail






posts: 1912

pc:
> B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with
> {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes
> through.

And species always exist, don't they?

> C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like
> "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage
> seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do
> you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL,
> as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

We need consider naku only. If the term is not quantified, it can pass
through naku unchanged. If quantified, the quantifier gets inverted.

> E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it
> loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

Not at all. {naku ro lo broda} = {su'o lo broda naku},
{ro lo broda naku} = {naku su'o lo broda} and
{lo broda naku} = {naku lo broda}, as with any other unquantified term.

> (But you
> really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never
> see why.)

I don't think we disagree about the interaction of negation and
quantifiers, do we?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

G>Yes; but would not occur — as such — in this context. Note that I deliberately did not use {lo broda} here, but something very close to a logical proper name. {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts. You cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally true)

H> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode. (notice some of these problems arise with proper names as well, even without splitting the referent into parts).

I> I am sorry, I could have sworn you just said that {ro broda naku brode} was the same as {ro broda cu na'e brode}, for which these moves do not work. Or are you taking {na'e} as {naku} rather than the other way. As noted just above, negation does not go through {lo broda} at all validly and fails for some names as well. That is, the claim about unquantified terms is false here. And unexplained in your system (both how it works and why you would want it).

J> See above.
..
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with
> {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes
> through.

G>And species always exist, don't they?

> C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like
> "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage
> seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do
> you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL,
> as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

H>We need consider naku only. If the term is not quantified, it can pass
through naku unchanged. If quantified, the quantifier gets inverted.

> E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it
> loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

I>Not at all. {naku ro lo broda} = {su'o lo broda naku},
{ro lo broda naku} = {naku su'o lo broda} and
{lo broda naku} = {naku lo broda}, as with any other unquantified term.

> (But you
> really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never
> see why.)

J>I don't think we disagree about the interaction of negation and
quantifiers, do we?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail





posts: 1912

pc:
> {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that
> Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so
> its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts.

I thought {lo broda cu brode}, in species talk, meant that Broda
overlaps Brode, not necessarily intersects.

> You
> cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu
> brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally
> true)

I agree with the first part (su'o brode). I'm not sure what you mean by
"validly quantify". Is it a problem to quantify over species?

mi nitcu lo tanxe e lo dakli -> mi nitcu re da

> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare
> {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to
> in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to
> out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode.

I don't understand why you bring specimens in, since {lo broda naku brode}
should not be about specimens of lo broda or lo brode.

The way I see it:

lo prenu cu me lo klama
People are goers.

That says that lo prenu overlaps lo klama. In simple cases like
this one it can be simplified to {lo prenu cu klama}, but this
move is not always availableble (for example from {me lo mi broda}),
and the reverse move is not always possible: {lo broda cu brode
lo brodi} could be {lo broda cu me lo brode be lo brodi} or
{lo brodi cu me lo se brode be lo broda}.

For pervasions we can use {klesi}:

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu
Rabbits are a kind of animal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

A> Gee, I hope I said "intrersects;" "overlaps" would not say anything about what is, only about what may be.
B> The point is — in both cases — that {lo broda cu brode} does not say that the species Broda is a brode (it will usually not be, since most properties are not of species but of ordinary things; the species Broda is also nota broda, for the same reason).

C> This is one of those cases, as I say, where what is involved is the intensional part. I confess I had not thought about the intensions of quantifiers (or the quantification of intensions), so I am unsure what to make of {mi nitcu re da}. I'll get back to you on that.
All I meant in the original part was that one cannot infer from {lo broda cu brode} to {su'o broda cu brode} (or maybe it will be snappier — and more accurate — to make that {su'o broda zo'u by brode}). Nice points both, but not damning so far as I can see now.

D>Intersection is about specimens since it is essentially about mingling [ now think that terminology is exactly backwards except that there must be a better term than "mingling"] and that is about some one thing being a specimen of both lo broda and lo brode. Otherwise there would be no connection to what is.

E> As always, I am unsure what examples with {me} mean because I don;t keep track of its meaning-ot-the-week. However, it appears here to somehow shift to intensions — which is something we do need to be able to do — so that it means lo broda overlaps lo brode (brodeness is part of the meaning of "broda" at least in posse). The mover from that to {lo broda cu brode} is never valid (though it goes through sometimes, especially if lo brode pervades lo broda and there are brodas), for there may either be no brodas or the may all be naku brode. I can't follow the rest of your example, partly because of {me}, I am sure, and partly because it seems to be based on some assumptions that I do not make and have not hinted at being the case. I admit that I cannot even formulate what those assumptions might be at the moment. Tell me, please, the mechanics of the inferences you are describing that go through and of those that do not.

F> Hell, we could use {mlatu}, but it doesn't make sense to. And it is not much farther from "pervasion" than {klesi} is. Pervasion is about intensions (properties and loci) and {klesi} (except {klesi3}) is about sets and specimens, extensions. (I can't think of a way to twist things around so that {klesi3} could be used: pervasion needs two properties, not one.) Your example is dead right for what you want to say and its truth ultimately derives from the tact that lo danlu pervades lo ractu, but it does not mention this latter fact — which would have to be said, I think, as {lo danlu cu [pervades] lo ractu} (which is, I gather, what you thought you said. [I do think you are right in reversing the order of terms here — and so of needing another expression than "pervasion." Back to the papers for a while then.)

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that
> Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so
> its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts.

A>I thought {lo broda cu brode}, in species talk, meant that Broda
overlaps Brode, not necessarily intersects.

> You
> cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu
> brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally
> true)

B>I agree with the first part (su'o brode). I'm not sure what you mean by
"validly quantify". Is it a problem to quantify over species?

C>mi nitcu lo tanxe e lo dakli -> mi nitcu re da

> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare
> {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to
> in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to
> out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode.

D>I don't understand why you bring specimens in, since {lo broda naku brode}
should not be about specimens of lo broda or lo brode.

The way I see it:

E>lo prenu cu me lo klama
People are goers.

That says that lo prenu overlaps lo klama. In simple cases like
this one it can be simplified to {lo prenu cu klama}, but this
move is not always availableble (for example from {me lo mi broda}),
and the reverse move is not always possible: {lo broda cu brode
lo brodi} could be {lo broda cu me lo brode be lo brodi} or
{lo brodi cu me lo se brode be lo broda}.

F> For pervasions we can use {klesi}:

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu
Rabbits are a kind of animal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail





posts: 1912

pc:
> Gee, I hope I said "intrersects;" "overlaps" would not say anything about
> what is, only about what may be.

In that case, I don't understand the species thing at all.
You want {lo tanxe cu se nitcu} to mean that Tanxe intersects
Se nitcu? There is an object that is a specimen of both lo tanxe
and lo se nitcu?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo


posts: 2388

Yuck!Ptui! Not at all. {nitcu2} is one of those places that triggers a dip into the intensional side of a species. I haven't written out the full definition yet but it is something about a void that will be filled only by a locus of lo tanxe (way too rough to stand much scutiny, but something along that line). Something like {lo se nitcu overlaps lo tanxe} or {lo tanxe overlaps lo se nitcu} is involved. In any case, {nitcu2} is about properties, not sets — as it were. I don't like the random way that these brivla turn up — or the places where they turn up, but I don't see any way (now) to make them more overtly different. You just have to learn (or test each case before you use it).
Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:pc:
> Gee, I hope I said "intrersects;" "overlaps" would not say anything about
> what is, only about what may be.

In that case, I don't understand the species thing at all.
You want {lo tanxe cu se nitcu} to mean that Tanxe intersects
Se nitcu? There is an object that is a specimen of both lo tanxe
and lo se nitcu?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo






posts: 1912


Let's see what we have and what we need in terms of
vocabulary.

I will use ti, ta, tu for objects, lo broda, lo brode,
lo brodi for species, lo'i ro broda is the "extensional aspect"
of lo broda, lo ka ce'u broda is the "intensional aspect" of
lo broda.

{ti cmima lo'i ro broda} says that object ti is a member of
lo'i ro broda; i.e. ti is a specimen of lo broda.

{ti ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} says that object ti bears the
property lo ka ce'u broda; i.e. ti is a locus/focus of lo broda.

Both can be said as {ti broda}, but here we lost the info on
whether the relationship between object ti and species lo broda
is mediated by the extensional or the intensional aspect of lo
broda. In general, it could be either.

{lo broda cu cmima lo'i ro broda}, brodas are members of the set
of all brodas.
{lo broda cu ckaji lo ka ce'u broda}, brodas are bearers of the
property of brodaing.

We don't have gismu for "object x1 is a specimen of species x2"
or for "object x1 is a focus/locus of species x2". I will use
mupli for the latter (even though that is not how it is defined
in the gismu list) and, given that every specimen is also a
focus/locus, I will use {cmimupli} for specimen. (The gismu list
would allow a simple cmima for this too, since x2 of cmima is
not restricted to sets.)

We also don't have a gismu to relate the extensional aspect to the
intensional aspect of a species. Such a brivla would be useful,
either "x1 is the set defined by property x2" or "x1 is the
property defining set x2". I propose {kaiselcmi} for the first
(based on x1 selcmi be lo ckaji be x2) and {cmiselkai} for the
other (based on x1 selkai be lo cmima be x2}.

For "x1 mingles with x2" I propose {cmimupkansa}, based on
x1 kansa x2 lo ka su'o da cmimupli ce'u, or simply {cmikansa},
and for "x1 overlaps x2" I propose {mupkansa}, based on x1
kansa x2 lo ka su'o da mupli ce'u.

I would use {klesi} for "x1 is pervaded by x2", even though
that is not its definition in the gismu list, and {cmikle}
for "x1 is included in x2".

(I leave intersection out for the moment because I'm not
quite sure I understand it, but we might use kruca or
something based on kruca for it.)

To summarize, I propose we use:

cmima (or cmimupli): x1 is specimen of species x2
mupli: x1 is locus/focus of species x2
cmikansa: x1 mingles with x2
mupkansa: x1 overlaps x2
cmikle: x1 is included in x2
klesi: x1 is pervaded by x2

Now, if I understand correctly, you propose that
{lo broda cu brode} should be read as {lo broda cu kruca cmikansa
lo brode} or as {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode} depending on
the meaning of brode (and of broda?). Why not say that it is
always the more general {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode}? This
is a more vague claim, but vagueness can always be reduced by
either context or adding more explicit information. Removing
precision is harder to do if we give the basic form too precise
a meaning. The advantage of doing this is that you don't need
to sort brodes into cmikansa expanding ans mupkansa expanding
classes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 2388

A> If you can point to it, it will be both. Reworking things as I go along, I am toying with doing it all with loci and thus simplifying the whole mess a bit, but so far the explanations get longer as the mechanism gets smaller. Every specimen is a locus, but not conversely — or maybe more exactly the infima species of every specimen is a locus. It doesn't matter in this context, since the context is extensional (I am assuming — there is no way to know outside of the definitions and {broda}, of course, doesn't have a definition) and will always get down to specimens.
B> I would assume that {cmima} is a species term, but it is not obviously so, so I'll go along with this for a while. Ditto {katli}.

C> Have I slipped and used "focus" for "locus? I was afraid I would, since both are used and have useful analogies. Maybe I need a change in that corner of vocabulary (that is, change all 7 terms to something not so confusing and maybe even systematic looking). If {cmima} is a species word, then the sample sentence would be false, since lo broda is a species, not a specimen and lo'i broda is not a species. This is an argument for finding new words for these things, and, at least for now, {mupli} or a compound looks as good as anything.

D> {girzu} is in the right direction but has not the right sort of thing and a lot of froufrou. Maaybe it is a place to start looking, however. And {ckaji} is somewhere along the line, since the first place is unrestricted. But I suspect that would lead to confusion. The other suggestions seem to follow from your basic ones and so look OK (this is not a ringing endorsement, since I don't really like any of them. But I am working primarily with the species and so use the terms a lot, whereas the ordinary language can allow them to be a lot longer). {kruca} just is all wrong — as is, indeed, the word "intersection" bioth her and in math usage generally. To use it here would be malglico to the max.

E> Yes, working only with loci simplifies the mechanism greatly (as you say, intensional contexts become,just special cases of predicates without having to suddenly bring intensions into a discussion fo extensions). But then the rules for ordinary claims require a longer explanation, since we do have to get down to specimens at some point — or try to do intersection in terms of overlap and the locus relation. This is doable, but the explanation goes on and on, whereas dropping to specimens and working with just sums from the specimen relation seems fairly simple (although, come to think of it, the specimen value is a direct function of the locus value. Hmmmmm!) I think I am afraid that working only with the intensional aspect as far as it appears I can will in fact get me over into talking only about possibilities when I want to be talking only about realities (this is a professional hazard in this particular game to which just about everyone has succumbed in some way great or
small). The (almost) all locus proposal is very Indian and thus very appealing to me, but I immediately get the whole Indian paradigm into my head again and know I don't want to go there. It is not obvious that I would have to however.

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:

Let's see what we have and what we need in terms of
vocabulary.

I will use ti, ta, tu for objects, lo broda, lo brode,
lo brodi for species, lo'i ro broda is the "extensional aspect"
of lo broda, lo ka ce'u broda is the "intensional aspect" of
lo broda.

{ti cmima lo'i ro broda} says that object ti is a member of
lo'i ro broda; i.e. ti is a specimen of lo broda.

{ti ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} says that object ti bears the
property lo ka ce'u broda; i.e. ti is a locus/focus of lo broda.

A>Both can be said as {ti broda}, but here we lost the info on
whether the relationship between object ti and species lo broda
is mediated by the extensional or the intensional aspect of lo
broda. In general, it could be either.

B>{lo broda cu cmima lo'i ro broda}, brodas are members of the set
of all brodas.
{lo broda cu ckaji lo ka ce'u broda}, brodas are bearers of the
property of brodaing.

C>We don't have gismu for "object x1 is a specimen of species x2"
or for "object x1 is a focus/locus of species x2". I will use
mupli for the latter (even though that is not how it is defined
in the gismu list) and, given that every specimen is also a
focus/locus, I will use {cmimupli} for specimen. (The gismu list
would allow a simple cmima for this too, since x2 of cmima is
not restricted to sets.)

D>We also don't have a gismu to relate the extensional aspect to the
intensional aspect of a species. Such a brivla would be useful,
either "x1 is the set defined by property x2" or "x1 is the
property defining set x2". I propose {kaiselcmi} for the first
(based on x1 selcmi be lo ckaji be x2) and {cmiselkai} for the
other (based on x1 selkai be lo cmima be x2}.

For "x1 mingles with x2" I propose {cmimupkansa}, based on
x1 kansa x2 lo ka su'o da cmimupli ce'u, or simply {cmikansa},
and for "x1 overlaps x2" I propose {mupkansa}, based on x1
kansa x2 lo ka su'o da mupli ce'u.

I would use {klesi} for "x1 is pervaded by x2", even though
that is not its definition in the gismu list, and {cmikle}
for "x1 is included in x2".

(I leave intersection out for the moment because I'm not
quite sure I understand it, but we might use kruca or
something based on kruca for it.)

To summarize, I propose we use:

cmima (or cmimupli): x1 is specimen of species x2
mupli: x1 is locus/focus of species x2
cmikansa: x1 mingles with x2
mupkansa: x1 overlaps x2
cmikle: x1 is included in x2
klesi: x1 is pervaded by x2

E>Now, if I understand correctly, you propose that
{lo broda cu brode} should be read as {lo broda cu kruca cmikansa
lo brode} or as {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode} depending on
the meaning of brode (and of broda?). Why not say that it is
always the more general {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode}? This
is a more vague claim, but vagueness can always be reduced by
either context or adding more explicit information. Removing
precision is harder to do if we give the basic form too precise
a meaning. The advantage of doing this is that you don't need
to sort brodes into cmikansa expanding ans mupkansa expanding
classes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail





posts: 1912

pc:
> If you can point to it, it will be both.

I think it is possible to point to a locus through a specimen,
meaning that the referent of the pronoun will be the locus and
not necessarily the specimen. For example, I point to a red
shirt and tell the seller "I want that one but in blue", {mi
djica ta poi ku'i blanu}. {ta} refers to the kind of shirts for
which the one on display is a specimen. The ku'i is necessary to
override the more natural initial assumption that I'm pointing
to the specimen rather than the locus.

> {kruca} just is all wrong — as
> is, indeed, the word "intersection" bioth her and in math usage generally.
> To use it here would be malglico to the max.

Well, not only glico in any case. I don't find it to be such a bad
metaphor, since the intersection is the part that both intersectors
have in common, or the subset with common members in the case of sets.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


posts: 84

I'm only partly understanding this whole discussion anyway, but could
someone possibly provide a brief definition of some key terms which I
haven't been understanding? (Or a pointer to such):

I think I'm okay with members of sets, but "focus" and "locus" in this
context I don't follow. Also "pervade" vs "intersect" vs "mingle";
what're these?

Thanks.

~mark



posts: 2388

Well, I've gotten away from that terminology somewhat, but it is still around. A focus (it is supposed to be "locus" but I keep slipping) of a property is an object that has that property. Every focus (real ones) of P is a member of {x : Px}. Pervasion is harder: if you have overlap in mind and see it as related to ordinary intersection of sets, then pervasion is like inclusion only about properties not sets. Basically P pervades Q if every locus of P is a locus of Q (and, indeed, every possible locus of P would be a locus of Q were it actual). MIngling is just — confusingly — ordinary intersection of sets. Intersecting is — even more confusingly — intersecting of sets in a weighted way: not just by number but better Ps count for more than poorer ones in the counting. So an intersection in this sense is a special kind of intersection in the ordinary sense (mingling)
"Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org> wrote:I'm only partly understanding this whole discussion anyway, but could
someone possibly provide a brief definition of some key terms which I
haven't been understanding? (Or a pointer to such):

I think I'm okay with members of sets, but "focus" and "locus" in this
context I don't follow. Also "pervade" vs "intersect" vs "mingle";
what're these?

Thanks.

~mark