xorlo & mi nitcu lo mikce
> pc:
> > --- And Rosta <a.rosta@v21.me.uk> wrote:
> > > pc:
> > > > --- And Rosta <a.rosta@v21.me.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Consider English "There is at least one
> > > cure
> > > > > for AIDS, and
> > > > > we discussed it". That entails or very
> very
> > > > > strongly
> > > > > implicates that one can go out into the
> > > world
> > > > > and find
> > > > > at least one cure for AIDS. "We
> discussed
> > > at
> > > > > least one
> > > > > cure for AIDS" doesn't imply that the
> AIDS
> > > cure
> > > > > is
> > > > > necessarily real. So the two English
> > > sentences
> > > > > seem not
> > > > > to be synonymous. But the Lojban
> > > equivalents
> > > > > are
> > > > > synonymous, and are equivalent to
> English
> > > "We
> > > > > discussed
> > > > > at least one AIDS cure". So I want to
> know
> > > how
> > > > > to render
> > > > > in Lojban the English "There is at
> least
> > > one
> > > > > AIDS cure,
> > > > > and we discussed it".
> > > > >
> > > > > To reiterate (for the sake of anyone
> else
> > > > > reading this), I
> > > > > am not saying that it is the job of
> *xorlo*
> > > to
> > > > > provide a
> > > > > way of translating "There is at least
> one
> > > AIDS
> > > > > cure,
> > > > > and we discussed it". Rather, I'm
> saying
> > > that
> > > > > one would
> > > > > like Lojban to have a way of
> translating
> > > it,
> > > > > and that
> > > > > xorlo happens not to provide it.
> > > >
> > > > What I mean by saying that xorlo seems to
> be
> > > a
> > > > "fix" that destroys an unbroken system:
> > > > {da cure — seems nearly impossible to
> say
> > > for a
> > > > material rather than a doctor la aids
> ije
> > > mia
> > > > casnu da} v. {mi'a casnu tu'a lo cure
> be la
> > > > aids} (using the intensional object
> rather
> > > than
> > > > the intensional place method.
> > >
> > > But we discuss the cure, not the
> abstraction.
> > > And
> > > what would be the abstraction that tu'a
> > > abbreviates?
> > > Or is {tu'a} just a marker showing that the
> > > discussee
> > > does not necessarily exist (at least as a
> cure)
> > > in
> > > the same world as the discussion?
> >
> > Yes, it is not immediately clear which
> > abstraction to use. I am inclined to think
> it is
> > usually events: What we discuss is either
> > whether (or that) the cure exists or what it
> does
> > or how it does it. Just discussing the cure
> tout
> > court is a little like needing just a doctor,
> not
> > a doctor doing something. But in any case,
> it
> > does give a world creator to potentially
> distance
> > the object.
On further thought, it seems to me that the
abstraction involved is a proposition, which
provides all the advantages of events with the
addition that they can be questions overtly,
rather than covertly. And, of course, discussion
is a linguistic activity.
> If this were so, it ought to be so also for
> cures
> that do exist, for I think existing and
> nonexisting
> cures can be discussed in the same way. So if
> tu'a
> is required for not-necessarily-existing cures,
> it should be required for necessarily-existing
> ones too.
While this is technically true, I don't see that
it needs to influence the language that much.
{mi nitcu loti mikce} is merely an idiom for the
same with {tu'a} indicating that loti mikce
exists in the same world as the speaker. (Some
aspects of this talk about what world the object
exists in seems to me to rest on a belief that
because the doctor who would fill my need would
have to be in the same world as I am the referent
of {lo mikce} has to be in this world. But that
is clearly wrong since the filling of the need is
clearly subjunctive, that is I can have the need
even though nothing in the world fills it.)
> Although I too at one time pushed for the sort
> of
> solution you're advocating, it no longer rings
> true for me (because the solution doesn't seem
> to
> fit the actual meaning). Two solutions I can
> see
> are:
> 1. Words (probably tcita) meaning "exists in
> local
> real world" and "doesn't necessarily exist in
> local
> real world".
> 2. Something like the XS gadri proposal, where
> there are two LAhE (or similar) such that PA
> LAhE1
> lo broda quantifies over broda in the local
> real
> world and PA LAhE2 quantifies over broda
> regardless
> of whether they're in the local real world.
>
> Solution (1) seems far less disruptive to xorlo
> and hence to the progress and consensus that
> the
> BPFK appears to have achieved.
Since I think that xorlo — even as it was
presented officially, before the expanding
explications — is a disaster, preserving it is
hardly a considertation. The predicate for
"exists in this world" ({zasti} + implications)
and "exists in an unspecified world" ({zasti} +
explcit comments) seems to me to put the work in
the wrong place, as does the {LAhE} solution.
They also complicates an already (in xorlo)
complicated situation for what is ultimately a
rather simple problem (several of them in fact),
for which the use of intensional expressions
provides a uniform solution within the present
system. As I have noted, I have yet to see a
convincing case which requires any of the
mumbo-jumbo of xorlo or that would justify the
complications that that system (well, some
versions of it — I hope one will get settled on
soon) entails.