WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri


pc:
> before: I am not sure that I agree that {lo} ever was equivalent to {su'o}
> 8: Well, it is eqquivalent in most cases, but I have proposed a couple of
> times that there be differnces in a few contextx. In particular, in opaque
> contexts I would use {su'o} to inidcate that the intended item was clearly in
> the real world while {loaaaaaaaaaaaa] left that question open. It is just a
> proposal but I don't want to cut it off by some admission I make in a
> different context.

That seems to result in something almost indistinguishable from my
proposal, leaving aside the meta-talk.

I removed the nitcu and djica examples from the page. Even though
I will keep using them in the sense "person x1 wants object x2" and
"person x1 needs object x2", the fact is that at least for djica
the gi'uste seems to restrict it to "perxon x1 wants event x2", so
I won't push an example that contradicts the gi'uste. (Also, Robin
wanted less examples from L* P**** P****, so that's an additional
reason to remove them.)

Of the remaining examples in that page, would you say that any
of them conflicts with your understanding of the old {lo}?

How would you improve the wording of the definition of {lo}
to make it coherent?

> 13: Your {lo ractu} is a constant, that is it has a single referent, the same
> in all contexts (so you say), but in different contexts different rabbits are
> used to make the resulting sentence true.

Right, just as in different contexts different John-stages are used
to make the resulting sentence true. (The John-stage that makes true
"John goes to the market on Saturday" is not the John-stage that makes
true "John stayed at home on Sunday".)

> There is no one rabbit that makes
> all true {lo ractu} sentences true.

No single instance of rabbits, right.

>lo ractu is no more a rabbit than John is
> a John-stage.

Using {le ca me la djan} for now-John, and {le puza me la djan} for
a-while-ago-John, then I would say:

le ca me la djan cu me la djan
Now-John is John.

le puza me la djan cu me la djan
A-while-ago-John is John.

la djan cu me la djan
John is John.

So yes, the same identificatory predicate that is satisfied by the
stages is satisfied by the individual, and the same I would say
for kinds and instances.

(I would like to be able to talk of {la ca djan} and {la puza djan},
but the current grammar forbids it.)

> That Mr. Rabbit is
> eating grass here is true because a rabbit instance is eating grass here.
> That Mr. Rabbit is a class is not true because some rabbit is. Which one is
> correct?

Both are correct, because in general the truth of {lo broda cu brode}
does not hang on the truth of {su'o mupli be lo broda cu brode}. For
some predicates brode, it just happens that the second entails the first,
but that's due to the semantics of the predicate, not due to any logical
necessity.

Anyway, if you can check the list of examples and tell me which ones
look wrong to you (and how you would correct them) that would be
helpful.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





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