WikiDiscuss

U: But unlike {la meripapnz na zasti} {lo pavyseljirna na zasti} seems to be false, since Mr. Unicorn exists whether or not any manifestations of him do. Unless, of course, {zasti} has an implicit reference to an instance in it as well or — as now seems likely — all predicates have manifestation references built in. Saying it that way does prejudice the issue a bit, for we could construct a language where the relations with abstractions were primary and either concreta were never mentioned or the predicates with concreta had implicit reduction devices . Depending on the details, these languages are rarely or not at all different from concrete-based languages which raises the question of why bothering to create this elaborate metaphysics . For Lojban, that is; it is perfectly clear Nyaya or Madhyamika might do it, since they need the metaphysics already.

V: Well, in one sense yes we do. That I want when I want a rabbit is an animal with soft fur, long ears, pronounced incisors, etc. That is not Mr. Rabbit, who, as an abstracta, doesn't have ears or incisors or.... Only his manifestations do. All that I want a rabbit doesn't distinguish among is *which* of those manifestations I want.
W: What does the long form say that is different from the short form? It does have the virtue of saying what it means, I think. The fronted case is also not a problem if {lo ractu} refers to the kind or whatever. But then the {su'o lo ractu} does not seem to make much sense, since a kind is not a set or a group of any sort of which we can some members. But in any case, it is an advance since we now actually have to say that it is the instances we want not the kind. And notice, if we do say that, we cannot also say {... ponse lo ractu}, since {ponse} has been identified with a relation having a concreta in its second place (a probably its first as well). {djica} of course has an abstract second place and relates to an (implicit) instance of that abstraction — this time an event one. And we can work these all out eventually.

I guess my ultimate question is "Why bother?" The summary says that this change in {lo} eliminates some problems arising from {lo} = {su'o}, but no examples are given that seem to be problems rather than solecisms. To be sure, {lo} (and probably {su'o} as well) may well have been used in ways that it is not equipped to deal with — kinds and the like, for example. But that means we need more gadri or whatever device we hit upon, not that there is anything wrong with the devices we have for doing their job. Of course, after years of this kind of fiddling, we probably need to be reminded what the jobs of some of these things are and the wiki page would be a good place to start. The only real problems seem to have been dealt with there: the dumb quantifier questions that generate fruitless debate actually extending back further than this one.

X: Well, the long ecxpression has the virtue of being clear and has all the factors explicitly mentioned, including the one hidden in the shorter forms.

Y:The concept exists and I can make the usual uses of it — which is all that having it ever means for concepts.

Z: But you just above said that it was not, I don't have Mr. Rabbit, only his manifestations. Please stick to one side or the other or flag when you are going to shift.

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

pc:
> We
> can, of
> course, generalize on on "John" in any transparent context (and, indeed, in
> those on "slice of John") but not in opaque contexts, since John might not
> exist and certainly his yesterday slice might not. Mr Rabbit, on the other
> hand, as a kind in intension or a property or whatever always exists and so
> can always be generalized on: to "something" or "some rabbit kind" or.... .

U:lo ractu e la djan lenon cu zasti
"Rabbits and John Lennon exist."
lo pavyseljirna e la meripapnz cu na zasti
"Unicorns and Mary Poppins" don't exist.

{lo ractu} works like {la djan lenon}.
{lo pavyseljirna} works like {la meripapnz}.
In this regard there is no lo/la distinction for opaque
or transparent contexts.

> But, like slices, manifestations can not be generalized out of opaque
> contexts. So from "I want Mr. Rabbit" we can presumably generalize to "There
> is something (indeed, a rabbit kind) such that I want it." But "I want Mr.
> Rabbit" does not say the same thing as "I want a rabbit;" that requires "I
> want a manifestation of Mr. Rabbit." And from this we can get "There is
> something (some rabbit kind) such that I want a manifestation of it." My
> problem is to know which of these is what {mi djica lo ractu} means and,
> having said that, how do I say the other.

V:When we say "I want that rabbit", we don't usually make
the distinction "for that rabbit, I want a (time)slice of it".
Similarly with "I want Mr. Rabbit" we don't have to make
the distinction "for Mr. Rabbit, I want a manifestation
of it."

W:You can of course still say: {mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ractu}
"I want that for some instance of rabbit, I have it", and you can
even shorten it to the somewhat vague {mi djica tu'a su'o ractu}.

You can also say:
lo ractu goi ko'a zo'u mi djica lo nu mi ponse su'o ko'a
Rabbits: I want that there is some instance of them that I have.

But usually you don't need to go that far, just as usually
you don't need to examine what each slice of "that rabbit"
does.

X:> The situation is easy in old
> Lojban (up to possible
> needed predicates: {mi djica tu'a le ka ractu} (taking {ka}as the nearest
> thing to -kind, for the moment) whence {su'o da (poi ka ractu) zo'u mi djica
> da} and {mi djica tu'a lo ractu}, whence, by a longer route perhaps, {su'o da
> (poi ka ractu) mi djica tu'a lo ckaji da}.

All of that remains sayable, though I don't really see people
going that route.

> The new {mi djica lo ractu} seems
> to fit somewhere in between — or maybe mix parts of one with parts of the
> other. (Incidentally, if "I want Mr. Rabbit" is not meant in some weird
> sense, it seems to me always false since I always have Mr. Rabbit — and all
> other abstractions — as much as I can.)

Y:In what sense can I say to have Mr. Rabbit when I don't have any
of its manifestations?

> S: But quantification is also over kinds (apparently and I don't mind much)
> and you seem to want to do both at once — or rather shift back and forth
> without any indication. In particular, {lo ractu} seems to shift meaning
> from Mr.Rabbit to a manifestation of Mr Rabbit at your whim. Please give me
> a rule for figuring out when it is which.

Z:It is always Mr Rabbit.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/