WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page How to use xorlo changed

posts: 1912

> --- John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > Still working on the strange use of "refer"
> > that
> > seems to play some role here, is the following
> > reasnably correct:

(I will answer assuming we are now talking of the
definitions approved by the BPFK.)

> > If I say {mu lo bakni} twice, the sentences
> > involved might be made true by two (at least
> > partially) different bunches of cows. In
> > neither
> > case are the cows referred to.

Right. For example:

mu lo bakni cu blabi ije mu lo bakni cu ca'o citka
Five cows are white, and five cows are eating.

I am not saying how many cows (if any) are both white
and eating. It could be anywhere from zero to five.

> > If I want to be sure that it is the same bunch
> > of
> > cows the second time, I should use {lo mu lo
> > bakni} which assures that the reference in the
> > second case is to the cows that made the first
> > case true (but which were not there referred
> > to).

No assurance, no. It may be the most likely assumption,
but that would depend on context.

> > If I use {lo mu lo bakni} in the first case I
> > not
> > only claim that there are exactly five cows
> > that
> > make the sentence involved true but I also
> > refer
> > to them.

No, you don't claim that there are exactly five cows
that make the sentence true, there may be more. You
refer to exactly five cows, and claim, of those, that
they make the sentence true.

> > I am still unclear about why {mu lo bakni} does
> > not refer to the the cows.

Because quantifiers are bridi operators, they don't
create a referring term.

> In my mind the fact that I can meaningfully talk
> about picking out even pragmatically the the five
> cows that made the earlier sentence true means
> that they have already been introduced into the
> context and I am unclear how that is done if not
> by reference:

Because you don't need to pick anything to claim that
five do something. The claim is meaningful without
any reference going on.

> they are the values of the
> variables (if you insist that there are variables
> in this case) in the first reference as they are
> the values of {lo mu lo bakni} in the second

The variables take _all_ the values of their range,
not just those values that make the sentence true.

> As I said somehwere earlier, we are constructing
> the model as we go here and so what we bring with
> sumti of any sort go into the model as the
> reality end of the reference function.

Yes, {lo bakni} in {mu lo bakni} does refer. Possibly
and probably to more than five cows. All of those
referents (not just the five that make the sentence true)
do go into the model.

> If I can
> tell that there are five, I can tell which ones
> they are in a sufficient way — though maybe in
> only a rather a rather vague. I can, however,
> know whether it is the same five involved at the
> next stage.

When you want to do reference, you can.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com