Wiki page How to use xorlo changed
wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> 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 range but the
> values here. It is the values that are alluded
> to in a quantified statement, they are what
makes the sentence true (damned button, whatever
one it is!)
> > > 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.
Hey two things we agree on, but this seems
inconsistent with what you have said elsewhere
which appear to say that {mu lo bakni} = {mu
bakni} quantifies over cows, not just over lo
bakni.
> > > 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.
I already did in some standard sense of
"reference." Yours may be a standard sense as
well but I don't know it nor how it goes.