WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

> --- John E Clifford wrote:
> > --- 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.

How do I get assurance? I can't use a pronoun
since it only works if the reference is the same,
but I have no reference yet.

>
> > > 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.

Good, we do agree on something.

> > > 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.

Well, here is my problem: I believe that {lo
bakni} for example is both a referring expression
and a quantifier. Its being a quantifier — and
a particuilar one at that — is the major part of
what it means — for me — to say it is generic
or non-specific. I don't quite understand what
"bridi operator" means here that keeps it from
making referring expressions. After all, the
descriptor (even if you don't think it is a
quantifer) is a bridi operator in the normal
sense of the phrase and you hold it creates a
referring expression. Is it the difference
between a (to put this in Lojban terms)
bridi-forming operator and a sumti-forming
operator? If that is the case, then I will accept
that it is the whole bridi which makes the
reference, not just the term (though I don't
really believe this).

> > 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.

I don't quite see how but then I am now perfectly
sure that I don't understand your use of "refer."
I wonder if there is some other terminology we
could use that would make my point and eventually
make your point clear.

> > 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.

We are not talking about the reange but the
values here. It is the values that are alluded
to in a
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>