Re: TECH: Any old thing whatsoever (was RE: do djica loi ckafi je'i
Jorge Llambias
> I don't see the problem. If you want exactly one box, you want
> 'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'. That means 'any box' unless I have
> missed the point of this discussion.
{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box".
la i,n cusku di'e
> Jorge's {xe'e} = "any":
>
> This strikes me as pretty dubious semantically (even more
> problematical than {po'o} = only). "Any" is kind of ambiguous
> between "all" and "one".
We can make it as unambiguous as we care to. "Any one of all" is
not the same as "each" and is not the same as "one".
(I would prefer that {xe'e} not be restricted to one, but this would
probably be the default. Then {paxe'e}, {rexe'e}, etc. for "any one",
"any two" etc.)
> xe'eti ka'e se pilno
> Any of these will do.
>
> might as well be
>
> roti ka'e se pilno
> All of these are usable.
> Each of these is capable of being used.
Yes, because the English expression in this case is somewhat ambiguous,
but the meanings are different. In the first case I say that only one can
be used, but it can be any of these. The "innateness" of {ka'e} complicates
the issue, though. How about
mi ba dunda xe'eti do
I will give you any (one) of these.
It is different from
mi ba dunda roti do
I will give you each of these.
and different from
mi ba dunda pati do
I will give you one of these. (Guess which one.)
> (I've previously on occasion advocated translating {ro} as
> "each" rather than "all". It means the same in the simple cases,
> and helps demonstrate problems similar to the one we're discussing
> here in the more complicated ones.)
I agree. "Each" is much better, because "all" can suggest a massification
that is not there.
BTW, what is so problematic about {po'o}? I've seen this complaint a few
times, but never read any description of what the problem might be.
And now that you mention it, it may well be that an attitudinal of the
{po'o} type could be used instead of a PA, as I proposed.
Jorge
Logical Language Group
JL>
JL>> I don't see the problem. If you want exactly one box, you want
JL>> 'pa lo tanxe' or 'pa tanxe'. That means 'any box' unless I have
JL>> missed the point of this discussion.
JL>
JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
JL>I need it". That's not what I usually mean by "I need a box".
No, I don't think that is a correct translation. It means "I need exactly
one out of the set of things that 'box'. It is not specific as to which of
the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed,
and it veridically is a box. (I can't remeber what it means if there is
no such thing as a box, cf. "I need a unicorn", but it has been discussed.)
I think your translation is expressed by "pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se nitcu mi"
"lo" as we have defined it is non-specific as to what member(s) you select if
you select a specific number of them less than 'all'.
TLI Loglan does not have a "lo" - their closest equivalent "lea" is pretty
much equivalent to "rolo", but I do not believe there has been any discussion
of usage with a non-"ro" quantifier before the "lea" (it is probably permitted
by their grammar, but it is not necessarily defined in meaning). TLI
Loglan has only "le" for individuation, and "le" is indeed specific in both
versions of the language. Of course "le" is also intensional and thus a
speaker can claim that any useful occurance of a box that turns up just
happens to be 'the' box that he had in mind.
You might also be able to do something with "pa lu'a roda poi tanxe (or
ro lo tanxe, or ro tanxe).
But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
benefit of R Holmes).
lojbab
Mark E. Shoulson
>Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 13:14:00 BST
>From: i.alexander.bra0125%OASIS.I...@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
>cu'u la mark. clsn.
>> I recall we went through this discussion once before; in fact it was
>> spurred on by a similar discussion regarding TLI Loglan regarding taxis
>> (mentioned by Randall Holmes here, I see). The answer there (our analogous
>> version of JCB's I think, and I liked it) was "loi tanxe". This works. I
>> need [some part of] the mass of things that are boxes. Possibly "lei
>> tanxe" if you want to admit something that isn't a box but turns out to be
>> what I meant anyway. I don't think we need a new quantifier for this one;
>> massification works (unless massification was rethought and redefined since
>> the last time this question came through and I missed it). I'll try to
>> find quotes from the last time.
>(I'm with Jorge on this one.)
>Sorry, Mark, I didn't really buy this the last time round,
>and I think I understand better why now.
> mi nitcu loi tanxe
>means
> There is some part of the mass of things that are boxes
> that I need.
>In other words, it suffers from the same problem as the {lo} version.
>It's more difficult to think of examples where you would actually
>want to say this, but I firmly believe that it has to work this way.
>Massification is irrelevant.
OK, let me quote what we had last time 'round.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:31:05 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab%GREBY...@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject: HISTORY: Some recent JCB pronouncements on Loglan
X-To: loj...@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Mark Shoulson <shou...@ctr.columbia.edu>
In weeding through my mail files, I found 2 postings by JCB on the
Loglanist
list that appeared and shortly thereafter seems to have disappeared.
(Anyone
know what happened to it???) They give historical viewpoints on topics
that
have come up in Lojban List discussions, and which therefore may be of
interest
to the masses. I forward the messages in their entirety, without
translation
of the TLI Loglan to Lojban equivalents. However, I will note that his
"lo" is our "loi/lei" distinction, with a heavier bearing on "loi", and his
"da" series is in Lojban split up into "ri/ra/ru" and the "ko'a series",
and
the "vo'a" series and a couple of other things.
lojbab
_______________
Message 5:
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:02:31 EDT
From: James Cooke Brown <70674...@CompuServe.COM>
To: Logli <logla...@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Gary on "Waiting for a Taxi"
Hoi Logli, kae:
This is in response to Gary's ideas about "waiting for a taxi." One can
indeed say 'Mi na pazda ne taksi' = 'I am waiting for exactly one taxi'
or 'Mi na pazda su taksi' = 'I am waiting for at least one taxi'; but I
don't think either of these forms is the "best", in the sense of "most
loglandical", usage for conveying what is happening when one is waiting
for a taxi. Why not? Because it emphasizes the denumerability property
of taxis and this is not what is involved in waiting for one.
What IS involved can perhaps only be seen from the perspective of those
(mostly preliterate) peoples (like the Trobrianders), who use the mass
designation almost exclusively in their languages. (Look at Dorothy
Lee, on this topic; or even Quine. There's even an article by me of
"The Creatures of Lo" in one of the early TL's.) For these people,
there are no importantly separate manifestations of ANYTHING. As I say
in L1, each baby to a Trobriander is simply a manifestation of "Mr.
Baby", each yam, an appearance of "Mr. Yam" all over again. Everything
is a manifestation of some mass individual: water of the mass of all
the water there is, a yam of all the yams there are, a book of all the
books there are, and so on. It is COUNTING that is awkward and odd in
such languages. Invariably they use a special enumerator, like
"one-piece yam", "one-piece baby", "one-piece book", when they want to
treat these objects as separate, countable things.
Now, L is not Trobriand. But L is neutral on this matter of
manifestation versus denumerability...well; not quite; the unmodified L
preda is indeed denumerable. But L does have a 'lo' operator that
allows you to talk in a Trobriand way should you wish to. It allows all
of us to use this mysteriously shadowy conception of the mass individual
standing behind each manifestation of itself when it is semantically
appropriate for us to do so.
Now we come to a matter of personal judgement. Having played this eerie
game for some years, I am persoanlly convinced that that is exactly what
I am doing when I am waiting for "a taxi"...or going to "the
movies"...or liking "icecream"...or enjoying the company of "women". I
am waiting for, going to, liking, and enjoying the company of,
respectively, some manifestation in my experience of all the taxis there
are, all the movies there are, all the icecream there is, all the women
there have ever been. In fact, that is PRECISELY what I am doing when I
am waiting for a taxi! I am waiting for an appearance out of the mist
of this mass individual. And interestingly enough neither 'Mi na pazda
ne taksi' nor 'Mi na pazda su taksi'--and certainly not 'Mi na pazda le
taksi' unless I called one!--gives anything like the right spin on my
meaning. For at the moment, when I am actually waiting for one, I am
totally uninterested in the fact that taxis can, under other
circumstances, be lined up in ranks and be counted.
What I am waiting for IS an appearance, a manifestation, of something
much much larger than the particular taxi that eventually does bear down
on me.
So, I at least will pazda lo taksi, godzi lo sinma, and gaispe lopo mi
kinci lo fumna whenever I am in Loglandia...and in true Trobriand
fashion, I will not count a single one of them, or even regard them as
very separate from one another.
It is, in short, a question of mood, of how one means to enjoy--or at
least experience--the world. Trobrianders do it one way; counters do it
another way; we logli ought to be able to do it both ways. Which way
are you going to do it when you are waiting for a taxi? Or enjoying the
company of women?
Hue Djim Braon
========
Back to present, Mark Shoulson reporting.
That said, it looks to me like there may be more than one thing at work
here. On the one hand, things like "I like tennis"" or "I like women"
should use "loi". After all, we go around saying how "loi" is massified
like the way some places refer to all rabbits as instantiations of Mr
Rabbit, these are instantiations of Dr. nu tennis and Ms. Woman.
But "I need a box" (and possibly tho not necessarily I need a taxi) may be
different, since you're not referring in general... precisely because *NOT*
"any of" the mass will do. A full box won't help you. Ormaybe "lei" will
help there. I dunno..
For consideration...
~mark
Jorge Llambias
>
> That said, it looks to me like there may be more than one thing at work
> here. On the one hand, things like "I like tennis"" or "I like women"
> should use "loi".
Agreed.
> But "I need a box" (and possibly tho not necessarily I need a taxi) may be
> different, since you're not referring in general... precisely because *NOT*
> "any of" the mass will do.
I think I may be changing my mind.
What confused me was the quantification of loi as "part of the mass of..."
{mi nitcu loi tanxe} could well mean that the _whole_ mass of boxes is
such that I need it, and since the properties of the individuals are
also the properties of the mass, then as long as I need one of them
I need the whole mass. Actually, there isn't one box such that I need it,
but the mass has more properties than each individual, so we'd still be ok.
> A full box won't help you. Ormaybe "lei" will
> help there. I dunno..
It doesn't matter. You're saying that the mass of boxes has the property
that you need it, not that the components of that mass have the property.
This makes me wonder what's the point of quantifying {loi} with anything
other than {piro}, since anything that is true for one quantification
should be true for any other.
So {mi nitcu piro loi tanxe} might make sense for "I need a box", but
is very counterintuitive.
The new problem is that "I need a box" doesn't mean that I need any box
whatsoever. Maybe I need a big box, in which case "I need a box" is true,
but "I need any box whatsoever" is not. And I don't think {lei} helps,
it's not a matter of specific boxes...
> For consideration...
Enough for today, I'm going home.
Jorge
Logical Language Group
JL>{mi nitcu loi tanxe} could well mean that the _whole_ mass of boxes is
JL>such that I need it, and since the properties of the individuals are
JL>also the properties of the mass, then as long as I need one of them
JL>I need the whole mass. Actually, there isn't one box such that I need it,
JL>but the mass has more properties than each individual, so we'd still be ok.
JL>
I THINK that the default quantifier "piso'u" on "loi" is needed BECAUSE
properties of different parts of the mass may not all be identical.
THus saying that "loi" has that quantifier means that the properties of
the individual are also the properties of PART of the mass. The mass as
a whole can have self-contradictory properties.
This may answer you other question - liking "loi xrula" does not necessarily
mean that you like ALL flowers, but that you like some unspecified portion
of all flowers. It is possible that you like ALL flowers and that you dislike
ALL flowers, if "ALL flowers" is piro loi xrula and you like at least one
flower and dislike at least one flower.
Statements about "piro loi ..." are just as universal as statements about
"ro da poi ...", but less useful because the opposite may also be true.
lojbab
Logical Language Group
JL>"I need a box" without having to specify what I need it for.
Then you want to use "le
tanxe" and not "lo tanxe" or "pa tanxe" which is related to "lo tanxe"
(specifically "pa lo tanxe".
"pa le tanxe" means one of 'the' boxes I have in mind. I may not be able
or willing to specify all the relevanmt properties of "le tanxe", but at
least it is possible to ask me if it isn;t clear.
Whenever you use "lo" you are, at least logically, not constarining the set
any more than is indicated by restrcitions you provide.
JL>Suppose there are three boxes of different sizes, and I only need the
JL>biggest.
JL>
JL>Does {mi nitcu pa le ci tanxe} mean that exactly one of the three boxes
JL>(the biggest) is needed by me, or that I need any one of the three?
I think the latter. You want
mi nitcu le pa le ci tanxe
JL>> But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
JL>> and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
JL>> benefit of R Holmes).
JL>
JL>I don't think {loi} works in the sense of "any whatsoever".
JL> mi nelci loi xruli
JL> I like flowers
JL>
JL>doesn't claim that I like any flower whatsoever, does it?
JL>
JL>Why should
JL>
JL> mi nitcu loi xruli
JL> I need flowers
JL>
JL>mean that I need any flower whatsoever?
Because you have massified the set "lo'i xrula", and any portion of that
mass will suffice. Now this is logic - when you say "I want water", you
will not be satisfied by poisoned water, or water embedded in the crystalline
structure of a hydrated rock, etc. So pragmatics may give SOME limits here.
But logically at least, "loi xrula" refers to ALL flowers.
"lei xrula" refers to a more specific set of flowers, like "le xrula" would.
(I think that when the Trobriand Islanders consider all rabbits to be an
instance of Mr Rabbit, they do have some pragmnatic restruictions as well -
I doubt that they consider a dead, cut-up rabbit in their stew as being
EXACTLY the samne thing as the one sitting in the field, but linguistically
they may not make the distinction - I wouldn't know for sure, though.
Similarly, there are pragmatic restrictions on "lo djacu" or "lo tanxe".
I suspect that this would best be dealt with by restricting the universe of
discourse intensionally, in which case 'all flowers' does not refer to
every flower that ever existed anywhere, and 'water' doesn;t refer to the
scattered molecules in interstellar space.)
Given these kind of pragmatic restrictions, "lo"
can serve the purpose needed. But "lo broda" still is NOT the
same as "da poi broda" in that it doesn;t claim that "broda" really exists.
lojbab
Jorge Llambias
> JL>{mi nitcu pa tanxe} means "there exists exactly one box such that
> JL>I need it".
>
> No, I don't think that is a correct translation. It means "I need exactly
> one out of the set of things that 'box'. It is not specific as to which of
> the set of things is needed, merely thatthere is a single thing needed,
> and it veridically is a box.
Suppose there are three boxes of different sizes, and I only need the biggest.
Does {mi nitcu pa le ci tanxe} mean that exactly one of the three boxes
(the biggest) is needed by me, or that I need any one of the three?
> I think your translation is expressed by "pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se nitcu
mi"
Yes, but I thought that {mi nitcu pa tanxe} means exactly that.
Does {mi ponse pa tanxe} mean the same as {pa da zo'u da tanxe gi'e se ponse
mi}?
If so (as I think) then why should it work for {ponse} and not for {nitcu}?
> "lo" as we have defined it is non-specific as to what member(s) you select if
> you select a specific number of them less than 'all'.
I agree that it is non-specific. The issue is whether it is "identifiable"
or "non-identifiable" (probably the wrong technical terms).
> But I still think we, unlike TLI don;t really have a problem with "lo",
> and we SHOULD like TLI, use "loi" (which in TLI Loglan is "lo" for the
> benefit of R Holmes).
I don't think {loi} works in the sense of "any whatsoever".
mi nelci loi xruli
I like flowers
doesn't claim that I like any flower whatsoever, does it?
Why should
mi nitcu loi xruli
I need flowers
mean that I need any flower whatsoever?
I don't think there's any problem with {lo} either. The only problem is
that we don't have any easy way to refer to that sense of "any". (Something
like "ajn" in Esperanto.) I think that either a PA with that sense, or an
attitudinal like {po'o} could be the answer.
Abstractions work too, in the sense that I can say:
mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lo tanxe
I need that I have a box.
and I suppose this is the sort of problem that made {djica} unable to
take a simple object. But I don't like that solution, because it is either
too complicated, forcing you to use {ponse} or some other relationship
when you don't want to, or it is too ambiguous {mi nitcu tu'a lo tanxe}.
There has to be a way to say: "I need any box whatsoever."
Jorge