WikiDiscuss

1. Assuming the differences you talk about are those for {le} and {lo}, this looks approximately right: for {le} the existence is implicit as a [recondition for using the form, for {lo} existence is actually part of what is said.

2. Fronting is move a referential expression from its proper place in the utterance to the prenex, leaving some appopriate relic behind: {ty broda ro da} to {roda zo'u ty broda da} as a dumb example. The problem cases are one like {mi djica (tu'a) lo tanxe} to {su'o tanxe goi ko'a zo'u mi djica (tu'a) ko'a} This move can't happen with {tu'a} which explicitly blocks it. There seems to be nothing to block it in the case without the {tu'a}.

3: I am not sure I can be clearer without developing the theories (and that is not conducive to clarity either), however the various cases have been discussed in earlier exchanges, going back a decade or more, and so should be in the archives in a gadri thread.

4: Well, it is certainly possibly true here and now that I want a unicorn, but it is certain false of some unicorn I want it. There are no unicorns (and thus, as xorxes says sometimes, no Mr. Unicorn either).

5. Yes, in the sense that {lo} is meant to translate (probably in some of the others as well, but they tend to be in restricted scoping situations — subjunctive and the like).

6: My story about what went wrong tends to be about people misusing {lo} in its normal case and trying to make it do work it very remote cases. And then when they got into trouble they decided that there was something wrong with {lo} because surely they could not make mistakes in Lojban! So they started muckjing with it, resulting in the present impenetrable state. Happily, in most cases — most of the cases of proper use of (old) {lo} — the two uses coincide and the differences are merely in the explanation of what is going on. The remote cases (and a few normal ones) work differently and those are what need soting out. Why is {lo mikce} for "a doctor"controversial with the new {lo}, that is (usually, I need to see a case to be sure) a central usage andm ought to agree with the old.

7:Including those, or what purport to be them. The "elucidations" are garbled at least, the examples are questionable — even in terms of the explanations given, and the mental processes are not ones that I can find in me or in books on the subject.

8: I suppose so, since the old {lo} clearly worked for some cases of "any" and the new one does not clearly work for anything, though seems to be just like old {lo} in the central case (which include the relevant uses of "any").

9: I seem to have missed the discussion. As for the cmavo, well, sometimes they have to be there to say what you want to say. And not always where you would expect them from English. You can say {mi djica lo mikce} and mean to say that you want a doctor and may even be understood to have said it, but the trip to that understanding (other than the patronizing "Well, he is new at this and can't be expected to get it exactly right") is much more complicated than with {tu'a}. In the {lo mikce} for "any doctor" case, I would need to see the whole context; translating "any doctor" alone is just not possible, since it can mean a variety of things depending on what role it is playing in what sentence.
xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:

John E Clifford wrote:

> * Why more {le} than {lo}? Both claim existence, though in different
> way. But then I don't see it as a problem for {lo} even.

1.In kairsanji, existence is implied because the thing existed at least
when the speaker made its acquaintance. In selkaisanji, existence is not
implied at all; the speaker is only discussing characteristics.

> ** that is my premise (or rather the premise of earlier Lojban): {lo}
> is equivalent to a particular quantifier (except perhaps
> distributionally). And it is that in all contexts. In event clauses
> (at least) its range is limited to the world of the mentioned event,
> which may be different from the existents outside in this world. This
> fact keeps us from carrying that quantifier outward ({tu'a} is merely
> a shorthand for an abstract description and so has the same effect).
> The problem with {mi djica lo ractu} is that it looks like that
> reference can be fronted as though it certainly referred to something
> in this world,

2.What does "fronted" mean? Please give an example of the problem it poses.

> and aparently it can be with new {lo}, with all manner of strange
> consequences (changing true to false as far as I can see).

***Not
> probably without developing the various ways of reading things. But
> briefly, (about {le}) if we make {lo ractu} really about a single
> thing, then all predicates to which it can be attached have to contain
> a reference to a manifestation of that thing, which then will
> conmflict with a {le} sumti, which presumably does not refer to
> something that has manifestations. So, every predicate becomes ambiguous.

3:I don't follow this at all.

> And of course (about distribution), even if {mi djica lo pavyseljirna}
> is true — as it well may be (despite xorxes saying thing which seem
> to require it to be false). {lo pavyseljirna goi ko'a z'u mi djica
> ko'a} is clearly false, since there are no unicorns.

4:Why would this be more false than with the substitution of ko'a with its
value?

> ****How are these problems? The first is just part of what "a"
> basically means in English and has carried over virtually unchanged to
> Lojban.

5.I was talking about the existence claim. Does English "a" have one?

> The second is (if I understand the case) nothing to do with {lo} at
> all and so can't be counted against it.

6.If you read the description in the Book, you'll find it comes very close
to what Jorge is proposing, and that at one time, the idea of using lo
for "a doctor" would not have been controversial. I don't know what went
wrong.

> Further, there is no evidence that the new {lo} as explained does
> anything to help this situation.

7:No evidence, I suppose, beyond example sentences, definitions that some
people manage to understand, and the elucidation of a rather common
mental process related to it.

> Depending on the context, "any doctor" would seem to be either {lo
> mikce} (old sense) or {ro mikce}.

8:Are you claiming that the old lo was more suited to "any" than the new one?

>And, of course there is not problem in asking for a doctor with the old sense of of {lo} (at worst you have to remember that imperatives are intensional contexts, but that is obvious)..
>

9:When I mean "lo" I mean it without tu'a, le ka, or any of the other
contraptions you've suggested. Are you now claiming that a bare {djica
lo mikce} will suffice???? By now I'm afraid the context is lost, so:
You asked what problems are being fixed, and I responded with "the
ability to use lo mikce for "any doctor" without cmavo torture and a
fortnight of heated discussion each time. "

10: Since my comments have mainly been about the metaphysics of {lo ractu} and Mr. Rabbit, examples seem irrelevant. However, the cases at issue have been discussed ad nauseam on several different occasions over the last few decades. They are all there in the archives and if you want to join the discuswsion you need to get up to speed again (you have been there in the past).

> The one problem that I have ever seen that might occasionally cause trouble for us learners is theat of negation-transparency and solutions to that can be made up within old {lo} at minimal cost. And even without a change, the solution is just to get used to thinking about what negations do and speaking accordingly.
>
>

>
>*****Several mentioned in passing here and others in the xorxes notes. These may not be real counterexamples to new {lo} or they may be proofs that new {lo} is incoherent. At the moment I am torn, but come down of the middle position that, even if new {lo} is coherent, it is an unnecesssary change, a misguided (probably malglico) attempt to solve some problems basically unrelated to {lo}.
>
>
>

10:Unfortunately, pc, your response was rather somewhat short on concrete
examples, so as I review my post, I'm not sure it will actually
contribute to any convergence of understanding. To continue fruitfully
we'll need example sentences where the new lo leads to contradictions,
or where a meaning of the old lo is orphaned and can no longer be expressed.

>xod wrote:
>John E Clifford wrote:
>
>
>>But asking for a doctor is just the sort of opaque reference where — as you say — the real existence is irrelevant. Reporting what a doctor did when there are no doctors is another matter and one where existence is relevant.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>*It is interesting that existence has historically plagued lo, when we
>see it is really more of a factor for le.
>
>
>
>>As for {mi djica lo ractu}, I can think of several ways whereby this would be a meaningful way to say I want a rabbit. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be the way that {lo} is presently (incoherently) explained.
>>
>>
>>
>
>**Perhaps then you should try working backwards from the premise: the
>proposed lo is intended to work in that sentence as "a rabbit".
>
>
>
>>And, of course, almost all of them leave problems problems in other places (contrasts with {le} in some contexts, permissible external references, and the like) which are avoided by the old Lojban locution.
>>
>>
>>
>
>***Can you offer concrete examples of these problems?
>
>
>
>
>>Can you — xorxes having so far not — provide a clear case of properly used old {lo} which causes a problem which new {lo} solves?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>****An end to erroneous idea that lo provides an existence claim and a
>secret "there is a" phrase, and the ability to use lo mikce for "any
>doctor" without cmavo torture and a fortnight of heated discussion each
>time. Paraphrasing Robin: any language in which you cannot ask for a
>doctor is a toy!
>
>
>*****Once again, and if you have concrete counterexample use cases, I'd be
>interested to see them:
>
>
>
>>>There are only 2 actual use cases we must cover.
>>>
>>>1. I want a rabbit, any rabbit, it doesn't matter which one. (selkaisanji;
>>>referring to some real objects; the speaker has revealed all of his
>>>criteria; uses lo)
>>>
>>>2. I want the rabbit, a certain rabbit, not any other. (kairsanji;
>>>referring to some real objects, the speaker has not revealed all
>>>criteria but retains some unspoken — he'll let you know if you bring
>>>the wrong rabbit; uses le)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

--
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Salim Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing Council. They are the Prostitution Council."