WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

A summary of where I think we are on the first step in dealing with gadri.

Up to this point, I think that {lo} has been used in at tleast the following ways. People have also tried to express many of these positions inwith other gadri – or other devices. Gadri – indeed {lo} have been used intending to express some combinations of these as well.



Lo1 – particular (CLL)



{lo broda} refers to particular identifiable broda on a particular occasion but that identification is not specified beyond {broda}. In most respects, {lo broda} is equivalent to {su’o broda}, except that it can occur in certain environments where the other is excluded with the same meaning({lo PA broda} does not mean the same as {su’o PA broda} with the same PA. {PA lo broda} means the same as {PA broda} so long as the internal quantifier does not occur. Each occurrence of {lo broda} — whether literal or with literal pronouns, may refer to different broda – like {su’o broda}. Same-reference anaphora uses such pronouns (not yet strictly determined but that is off this point) or, typically, {le broda}.

  • Officially, the internal quantifier in {lo PA broda} is the size of the set of all broda, the external quantifier {PA (lo) broda} is the number of brodas referred to on this occasion. Officially, these default to {ro} and {su’o} respectively. Some folk have frequently said that these defaults (indeed, having defaults) were more trouble than they were worth, creating extra steps in quantifier situations and the like, and so have recommended eliminating them while elaving the option of using explicit ones as needed for meaning. Some have also suggested that reports on the size of the class of broda are generally uninformative and that other uses for internal quantifiers might be found (this is often allied with other readings of {lo}).




Lo2 – generic



{lo broda} refers to unspecified (indeed unspecifiable) broda in unspecified situations. As such, quantifiers are strictly irrelevant except that {lo broda cu brode} is entailed {ro broda cu brode} and entails {su’o broda cu brode}. No number of exceptions (short of all) to {lo broda cu brode}-- broda that don’t brode or occasions when they don’t — falsify the claim but typically single instances or a few don’t establish it either. Some cases – outstanding broda – may establish it or masses may weigh against contrary outstanding cases (truth is from weight rather than number and the propounder gets to assign the weights – not that any such assignment or even checking goes on). {lo broda cu brode} makes not claim that the behavior mentioned is common, typical, normal, average, nor weird, only that it does occur. (There is an implication that it is either common or weird just because it is mentioned, but that is not asserted – and either side of the possibility may be intended.)

In general, {PA (lo) broda} reduces to the same expression using {lo1}. Lo2 seems especially asociated with the notion that {lo PA broda} should be used as a more precise version of {lo broda PAmei}, unspecifiable groups of PA broda, considered as acting distinctly from individual broda.

In a single context, repeated occurrences of {lo2 broda} may be taken to have “the same reference” so long as not too much is made of this (like insisting that some particular broda is represented in both cases). This can lead to an occasional paradox, which must then be resolved by introducing a bit more precision, but generally one ca proceed as though the reference were constant.



Lo3 – species



{lo broda} refers to the concept of broda both in the Great Semantic Web but also in factual Weaving of the World. For example, lo ractu is semantically connected to animals, gnawers, furbearing and factually to threatening Australia and overbreeding. Quantifiers play no role here at all (well, maybe PA broda hook up differently from broda tout court and so internal quantifiers might have a role). Repeated occurrences refer to the same thing, of course. The interesting question is what kinds of sentences can this expression enter into. We want to say two kinds of things about species – species kinds of things and specimen kinds. The first is that a species is a species and that it falls under such and such genera (in the broad sense, as is “species”). The second – sometimes related – is that “members” of the species have such and such properties more or less by virtue of their membership. The second involves ordinary predicates, the first involves relations like “falls
under,” “is a subclass of,” “intersects with,” and the like. All of the second kind of things can be said using the first line of chat. “Rabbits are animals” and “The species Rabbit falls under the genus Animal” say much the same thing. But the first is much longer and the basic items here are much less commonly said. The the norm sems to be to use the second kind of locution, {lo ractu cu danlu} rather than {lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu} (or something along that line). When we need to talk species talk, it turns out to be as useful to talk set talk: {lo’i ractu cu klesi lo’i danlu}. This allows another advantage: we can circumvent the problem of saying of something that does not exist that it does not exist: the species always does exist so all we need to is say that it does not fall under lo zasti.

Since external quantifiers are irrelevant (there is exactly one of each species) , we can use them to refer to specimens {su’o lo ractu} behaves just like {lo ractu} with {lo1} (or {lo2 for that matter).



Lo4 – goo



{lo broda} refers to the substance of which individual broda are made. It akes fractional quantifiers for gobs of goo and perhaps (quasi Chinese) regular quantifiers for “natural” gobs. This is the least explored alternative and so there is less to say bout it. The goo is the same throughout but different gobs (explicit external quantifiers) may be different. Internal quantifiers do not seem to make much sense either way.





Obviously 2 and 3 with one another and parts of both with 1 have a lot in common. Many suggested usages seem to have started with that core and built on it toward one or the other of them but often incorporated inconsistent bits of the other. It may be that one or the other of 2 and 3 is enough (1 seems pretty clearly to be subsumable under either). It may even be that there is a form of 2 and 3 that are so indistinguishable tht we need not declare which we are using. Or we may need both and even 1 as well. 4 seems to be a separate case, not readily encompassing any other except perhaps 1.



Notice in passing that all of these are presented as observable real world notions, not – in any troublesome way “intensional.”