Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

[la gleki]

Again Google Groups didn't let me resurrect this old discussion. So please follow the link to follow the whole discussion.

And now it's my turn to ask the community once again after 18 years of disinterest.

{djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all been

dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still accepts

objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place was

directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible

entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a property

of said thing.

Why not treat them all the same?

The transparent case:

{mi djica lo tanxe} = "There is a box wanted by me"

{mi nitcu lo tanxe} = "There is a box needed by me"

{mi sisku lo tanxe} = "There is a box sought by me"

One more moment. Are there any other gismu that have the same "problem"? 

On Tuesday, November 22, 1994 4:03:33 AM UTC+4, Jorge Llambias wrote:

la lojbab cusku di'e

> Of course there is nothing strange about a brivla relating two objects - a
> seeker and the thing known-and-sought-after, and having a certain predicate
> relating them.  The problem that I see is that there is more than one such
> predicate, and the choice is dependent on the specificity  (or is that
> definiteness %^) of x2 vs. its opacity, etc., and what the desire is of the
> seeker for the final state after finding.

The problem is transparency vs opacity. Transparent references can be
specific or nonspecific, and that can be marked with the appropriate
quantifiers, but we don't have any way to mark explicitly opaque references.

The other properties that you mention, like desires of the seeker for what
to do after (or rather if) the sought after thing is found, are not really
to the point. If you want a place for them I guess you do need a lujvo.

Also, in English, the meaning of "seek an object" has been generalized
to "seek knowledge", where by "finding it", we mean that we get to
know the truth value of some utterance. (I suppose that's what you call the
seeking of science.) I don't have a problem with letting this metaphorical
extension into Lojban, but in any case this is not part of the opaque problem.

An interesting property of sisku as it is defined now, is that the lambda
variable of its property really never takes a value. Normally, the lambda
variable of a property corresponds to one or more of the places of the
selbri (for example for {zmadu}, it's the x1 and x2) but for sisku, there
is no place for the thing being sought, so there is no place that fits the
lambda variable.

> WE have other cases in Lojban where the Lojban word covers a misleading
> subset of the English meanings of the keywords ("old" and "know" being two
> cases that come to mind).

BTW, because of my mail problems a month or so ago I never found out whether
{citno} means "young", so that it only refers to living things, or whether
it is more general. Would an "old car" in lojban be a {tolcitno karce} or
a {tolcnino karce}?

> In all such casesa we have learned to live with the
> fact that the English word is tto broad and have come up with lujvo for the
> alternative meanings.  Such lujvo can always exist, and if this whole
> issue of "lo" and "existence" blows away. the number of distinctions we need
 to
> make may be reduced.  But I remain unconvinced of this - as pc said a while
> back in this discussion - there are some predicates that embody a hidden
> abstraction involving one of the sumti, and we have to live with this

What do you mean by "some predicates"? English verbs, like "want", "need",
"look for", etc, or Lojban predicates like {djica}, {nitcu}, {sisku}, etc.?

I totally agree that the English verbs can accept opaque references as direct
objects, without any marking. They also, in other contexts, can take transparent
direct objects.

Because of the logical aspect of Lojban, this can't work like that in Lojban,
and so the arguments are always transparent.

But, the fact is that the opaque meaning is often very useful for these
predicates, so what do we do?

I propose to find one solution for all such predicates, rather than patches
for each of them. {djica}, {nitcu} and {sisku}, for example, have all been
dealt with differently: {djica} only accepts events, {nitcu} still accepts
objects, and the solution for {sisku} was the weirdest: the x2 place was
directly eliminated and replaced by only a property of some inaccesible
entity, so that {le se sisku} is not the thing looked for, but a property
of said thing.

Why not treat them all the same?

The transparent case:

{mi djica lo tanxe} = "There is a box wanted by me"
{mi nitcu lo tanxe} = "There is a box needed by me"
{mi sisku lo tanxe} = "There is a box sought by me"

and the opaque case:

{mi djica xe'e lo tanxe} = "I want a box (I don't care which)"
{mi nitcu xe'e lo tanxe} = "I need a box (I don't care which)"
{mi sisku xe'e lo tanxe} = "I seek a box (I don't care which)"

(I don't mind using {lo'e} instead of {xe'e lo}, I think it makes sense
as well.)

As things stand now, for the transparent case I have to say:

{da poi tanxe zo'u mi djica tu'a da}
{mi nitcu lo tanxe}
{da poi tanxe zo'u mi sisku le ka du da}

Why so complicated?

>        mi'e la lojbab noi sisku loka lo danfu be le me zo sisku me'u nabmi
>                           cu mansa roda

That doesn't make much sense to me. You probably mean {noi sisku lo ka danfu
le me zo sisku me'u nabmi gi'e mansa roda}, otherwise you are saying that
you are looking for something with property an answer satisfies everyone,
but what is it that you look for? the answer, everyone? I think this is an
unnecessarily complicated way to deal with {sisku}.

Jorge

[John E Clifford]

I haven't gone through the discussion in a while, so my memory (never at its best) may have oversimplified and compressed the last few rounds.  Lojban  decided that no argument place would be intensional (necessarily refer to things that span possible worlds), since all such places do have extensional (this world only) uses.  The intensional effect was to be obtained using intensional sumti, of which there are many available (nu, ka, du'u, etc. predicates).  Although which intensional sumti was appropriate for a given place was a matter of discussion, it was agreed (well, as much as such things ever are here) that the focus in actual speech was usually on an object, a sumti within the larfer bridi within the argument to fill the slot.  So, it was decided to abbreviate the whole surrounding bridi to just {tu'a} -- it already would typically have had just a dummy predicate anyhow.  What the actual abstractor was in each case was not generally relevant (the suggestion that they were all ultimately {du'u} never got much traction), except when the term was taken out quantificationally.  So, the different "restrictions" were, in fact, all treated as as the same.  I suppose, it is occasionally the case that one actually wants to use the full form -- as when what one wants is not, say, merely a girl but explicitly to be dancing with a girl.  But then it will be found that the recommended abstractions are appropriate. 

I will be interested (since I am not going to dig back through all this, running 30-odd years in my notes) to see what the present situation is different from that moment of consensus.

---

From: la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 3:46 AM
Subject: [lojban] Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/dm2yBBR5LXAJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Mike S.]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:46 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Again Google Groups didn't let me resurrect this old discussion. So please follow the link to follow the whole discussion.

And now it's my turn to ask the community once again after 18 years of disinterest.

I am not sure whether to make a bowl of popcorn, or run away.

[John E Clifford]

If my memory serves, running seems the best idea.  It now appears that the previous thread apparently about {ro} and "any" was actually about the (apparently) odd behavior of quantifiers in the proximity to intensional contexts and so there is probably a double issue at hand. 

{do djicu le nu do citka ma} is a real world question embedded in an transworld context, so its answer turns out to reflect both its antecedents, with the issue being (at least partly) just where the quantifier goes in the the whole dialogue scheme.  To this there are many answers, none of them totally satisfactory nor generally agreed to, so a long storm is likely.  But I am (after all these years) a pessimist, so stick around for at least a while and see if something useful doesn't turn up.

---

From: Mike S. <mai...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[Mike S.]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:38 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If my memory serves, running seems the best idea.  It now appears that the previous thread apparently about {ro} and "any" was actually about the (apparently) odd behavior of quantifiers in the proximity to intensional contexts and so there is probably a double issue at hand. 

{do djicu le nu do citka ma} is a real world question embedded in an transworld context, so its answer turns out to reflect both its antecedents, with the issue being (at least partly) just where the quantifier goes in the the whole dialogue scheme.  To this there are many answers, none of them totally satisfactory nor generally agreed to, so a long storm is likely.  But I am (after all these years) a pessimist, so stick around for at least a while and see if something useful doesn't turn up.

IMHO only a careful and thorough formalization that posits exactly _one_ semantic interpretation rule for _each_ syntactic operation has the chance to clear up such issues once and for all.  Such a formalization wouldn't have to be like Montague's program in all the exact details, but it would have to be something much like it in terms of degree of rigor.

In the meantime I'll stick around and even chime in from time to time.



 

[John E. Clifford]

Welcome to the club.  Yes, a full Montague analysis would be the surest hope for a solution to all problems, but nobody since Richard has been up to doing that, so we stick with piecemeal solutions (which is all he actually left).  A good analysis of words like {djicu} and {nitcu} would be a good start (I know the basics but can't see the specifics).

Sent from my iPad

[la .lindar.]

While we're putting this to the record, I would like to point out to all of you Anglophones that it seems very much like you're misusing {nitcu} where {bilga} would be far more appropriate, i.e. "I need to go to the store.".

[John E Clifford]

We are probably screwing some things up, but this is not obviously one of them.  I need to go to the store if the store is the relevant place to get what I need.  I am mnot necessarily obliged to go to the store, even if it has what I need for some project, unless I am obliged to finish the project -- or unless you take "obliged" in a practical sense.  {bliga} has similar problems, aside from the issue of to whom you are obliged and by what fiat.

---

From: la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 7:42 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

While we're putting this to the record, I would like to point out to all of you Anglophones that it seems very much like you're misusing {nitcu} where {bilga} would be far more appropriate, i.e. "I need to go to the store.". --

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/0xu-WIgocAYJ.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:10 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We are probably screwing some things up, but this is not obviously one of
> them. I need to go to the store if the store is the relevant place to get
> what I need. I am mnot necessarily obliged to go to the store, even if it
> has what I need for some project, unless I am obliged to finish the project
> -- or unless you take "obliged" in a practical sense. {bliga} has similar
> problems, aside from the issue of to whom you are obliged and by what fiat.

What Lindar probably has in mind are not things like "I need to go to
the store" which seems like a clear case of "nitcu", but things like
"someone needs to clean the floor" or "the floor needs to be cleaned".
These seem to be more ".ei" than "bilga" though. ".ei su'o da lumci lo
loldi", ".ei lo loldi cu se lumci". They are certainly not "su'o da
bilga lo nu lumci lo loldi" and much less "lo loldi cu bilga lo nu se
lumci". I would say they are actually cases of raising from "sarcu":
'lo nu lo loldi cu se lumci cu sarcu" -> lo loldi cu jai sarcu fai lo
nu se lumci": "That the floor be cleaned in necessary" -> "the floor
needs to be cleaned". The "someone" case can't be raised in Lojban
because of the quantifier. Other cases that may look more like "bilga"
(as in "he needs to pay more attention") I would say are similarly
cases of raising (from "it is necessary that he pay more attention")
rather than cases of "bilga".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[John E Clifford]

Vocab sorting: nitcu : x1 needs/is dependent on / x2 for purpose x3
                      sarcu: x1 (abstr) is necessary for completion of x2 under conditions x3
So presumably n2 is s1 when n3 is s2 (or some abstraction involving n2 anyhow)
                      bilga : x1 is obligated/ has a duty to do x2 under convention x3 (or whatever word you want there)
So, not related to the other two in any obvious way; they are purpose-oriented, this is contract oriented.
The floor cleaning cases is, of course, open to several readings: in the barracks, with inspection impending, {nitcu} seems quite appropriate, though, given that these events recur, a system is likely that {bilga}s some individual or group, in which case {ei} also fits.  I don't see exactly how {sarcu} fits into this discussion, nor the one about studying.  subject raising is always suspect and to be avoided whenever possible and none of these cases seems to require it, though, if you want to say "The floor needs cleaning" and need n1 to be an agent, you may have to use it.

---

From: Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:32 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[la gleki]

I should make my point more clear.

Look at the following.

prami x1 loves/feels strong affectionate devotion towards x2 (object/state).

dirba x1 is dear/precious/darling to x2; x1 is emotionally valued by x2; x1 may be a specific object, a commodity (mass), an event, or a property

pluka x1 (event/state) seems pleasant to/pleases x2 under conditions x3.

melbi x1 is beautiful/pleasant to x2 in aspect x3 (ka) by aesthetic standard x4.

And last but not least

cirko -cri- x1 loses person/thing x2 at/near x3; x1 loses property/feature x2 in conditions/situation x3; x2 may be a specific object, a commodity (mass), an event (rare for cirko), or a property.

This last example shows something mutce lo ka cizra.

If we can easily interchange objects and abstractions in {lo se prami, lo dirba, lo se cirko} omitting {tu'a} then it would be reasonable to ask:

"What the hell is {tu'a} for?" If lojban is not consistent in using it at all, why not omit it all the time?

Then we'll get those {mi sisku lo penbi} (in la selpa'i 's dialect) and even {mi djica lo plise}.

[Ian Johnson]

I consider {cirko} to have similar issues to {binxo}; if it's going to have anything to do with properties, it should always have to do with properties, but since properties are just predicates in my usage, {binxo} is essentially redundant to {co'a}. {cirko} as only having to do with {co'u ponse} would be fine, but if it has to do with a property then it is again redundant to just {co'u}.

The rest are straightforwardly fine, to me; things like {melbi} fall into a general category of "pre-jai'd" gismu, which are a bit odd but useful and pe'i consistent.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/aTfTDbKnrqUJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Jacob Errington]

The thing about {cirko} is that it may or may not have to deal with possession. It has a sort of possession focus, but if you're using it with properties, then that just falls apart: {.i mi cirko lo ka pampe'o do}

Really, it's just co'u, but when used on a concrete sumti, it has the implication of losing possession. I'm not too fond of this duality.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[la gleki]

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:53:23 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:

The thing about {cirko} is that it may or may not have to deal with possession. It has a sort of possession focus, but if you're using it with properties, then that just falls apart: {.i mi cirko lo ka pampe'o do}

Really, it's just co'u, but when used on a concrete sumti, it has the implication of losing possession. I'm not too fond of this duality.

Are you fond of lo selpa'i duality being both an object and an abstraction? May be we should say {mi prami tu'a do} all the time?

[Jacob Errington]

I dislike multiple types in pretty much any place. I don't personally believe that love can apply to events, but obviously, that's arguable. People are going to use the language the way they want, because at this point there're no stone tablets with the rules really written onto them. I don't even think that it's useful at this point to try convincing people of what's right and wrong with the language. It's like a religious debate.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/t_ef3I0HOREJ.

[John E Clifford]

I seem to have missed something here.  Is the question whether different sorts of things can be mentioned as objects of desires or portrayal or evaluation?  To a fairly large extent, the answer is obviously "Yes!".  More readily in some cases than in others: desires and needs, for example,  are for things that fit into a causal narrative and so pretty much have to be events; pictures pretty much range over all possible categories (in a broad sense of "picture" of course, as is usual in art), seeking is limited (perhaps) to the concrete (although answers seem to be an exception). 
In any case, I doubt that this is the problem.  What is usually the problem here is that sometimes the predicates of this sort take arguments that create an intensional context and sometimes not.  And the reason for that is simply that sometimes the arguments involve reference to things in the external world and sometime not.  A picture of USS Constitution battling HMS Seraphis sets up different logical expectations from a picture of just two frigates fighting, namely that there are, outside the world of the picture, two ships who might be in this battle, whereas there is no such certainty in the second case.  And, in a logical language, this needs to be reflected, somehow, in the presentation.  The present system doesn't do this very well (the inchoate Xorban seems to be a bit better, but it is still too illformed to be sure), but it at least warns one to be wary about the twin no-nos of quantifying in and interchange of identicals. 

---

From: Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

[MorphemeAddict]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I seem to have missed something here.  Is the question whether different sorts of things can be mentioned as objects of desires or portrayal or evaluation?  To a fairly large extent, the answer is obviously "Yes!".  More readily in some cases than in others: desires and needs, for example,  are for things that fit into a causal narrative and so pretty much have to be events; pictures pretty much range over all possible categories (in a broad sense of "picture" of course, as is usual in art), seeking is limited (perhaps) to the concrete (although answers seem to be an exception). 
In any case, I doubt that this is the problem.  What is usually the problem here is that sometimes the predicates of this sort take arguments that create an intensional context and sometimes not. 

Why is this intensionality not made (optionally) explicit? Is there cmavo that means 'intensionality'?

stevo

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM, John E Clifford <kali9...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[...] seeking is limited

> (perhaps) to the concrete (although answers seem to be an exception).

Happiness, forgiveness, acceptance, recognition, fame, entertainment,
a job, a cure can all be sought too.

[John E Clifford]

Those do seem to be a different sense of seeking -- no obvious set to look through, for example. But that may also be a mistake in the gloss.

---

From: Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>

To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 3:38 PM

Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Cowan's summary: opacity and sumti-raising

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.