jbocre: On zo'e noi in the gadri definition

A conversation on the #lojban IRC channel about the relationship between lo and zo'e noi.

The conversation

mukti

I'm reminded of a related question I had when I first encountered the zo'e noi broda formula, which is to say, why noi broda rather than poi broda?

lukys

Doesn't poi mean something that is essential for the identity, whereas noi is some incidental detail?

durka42

zo'e is always correct by magic so it doesn't need to be poi

mukti

If I say lo botpi, I'm referring to something contextually sensitive. That's the zo'e part, right? But the referent is restricted (or so it seems to me) among all the contextually available referents in so far as it satisfies botpi. That restriction seems to me more like a poi than a noi. Someone set me straight.

durka42

I think zo'e covers both of those

durka42

it's just not very useful for the listener to have a bare zo'e in every place...

mukti

lukys: Yes, it's my impression that poi limits reference, whereas noi comments on referents

xalbo

I've never understood the problem with zo'e poi either. It still seems right to me. zo'e magically changes reference to find the contextually relevant thing, but zo'e noi broda cu brode seems, to me, to be saying that the thing we'd expect to be talking about if we saw zo'e brode also satisfies broda, where zo'e poi broda cu brode seems, to me, to be saying that the thing we're talking about that satisfies broda satisfies brode.

mukti

zo'e noi broda seems to imagine a situation where the referent is pointed to independently of being described as broda.

mukti

If lo broda is equivalent to zo'e noi broda, aren't we saying that the reference is independent of the description?

mukti

That the description is incidental?

durka42

well, the reference is in the speaker's mind

mukti

Ok, but is it a typed pointer or a void * ?

durka42

don't know how to answer that

durka42

I think it's typed

mukti

What I'm trying to get at is whether or not the reference can be said to depend on the description.

durka42

that's what people keep going back and forth on

mukti

If the reference does not depend on the description, then it is similar to a void * in C. It's the address of data which is unspecified in structure.

durka42

but the data's there, either way

mukti

Well, it depends what you mean by "the data". :)

durka42

the referents

mukti

If lo broda is zo'e noi broda, and the reference is *not* said to independent of the description, then zo'e must have some property of suspending reference until relative clauses are considered. Or so it seems to me.

durka42

I guess I'm saying they're independent then

durka42

but I don't know

durka42

if we can't answer this question… perhaps zo'e is too magical...

xalbo

Well, I think the point is that zo'e is nearly limitlessly magical. It does whatever it needs to, given the entire context (including relative clauses, and everything else possible) to make what you say true.

durka42

but you can still say things that aren't true...

xalbo

I guess, then, to make it mean what you mean it to mean...I'm not sure.

durka42

if I say mi dunli lo merja'a, intending to lie, but zo'e undermines me by magically resolving to lo ka remna kei po'o, that's kind of annoying

xalbo

Being xalbo, I'd say that's why you wanted to say mi merja'a

durka42

well yes

xalbo

But you make a good point. If someone asks mo fa la tepcrida ("What happened to the dementor?"), then se citka mi is a lie, even if se citka mi would otherwise be a true statement (I did eat something). Though maybe that has more to do with place-filling and mo.

xalbo

"What I told you is true, from a certain point of view."

durka42

zo'e has to take the speaker's intentions into account

durka42

perhaps that's the same as saying zo'e takes the UD into account

xalbo

I don't think those are the same. I'd say it probably has to take both into account.

selpa'i

Don't take zo'e noi broda too literally.

selpa'i

It's not a text replacement, but a referent replacement

durka42

uaru'e

selpa'i

zo'e noi broda is lo broda if zo'e brodas.

durka42

but you can actually say zo'e noi in a sentence

selpa'i

Sure, and then you need to know what zo'e refers to.

selpa'i

Or not care.

durka42

or, every other week someone invents another experimental cmavo that means zo'e noi [bridi].

xalbo

"<selpa'i> zo'e noi broda is lo broda if zo'e brodas." -- That seems like a really complicated way of saying that lo broda is/does the same thing as/mintu zo'e poi broda.

durka42

xo'e da poi broda zo'onairu'e

selpa'i

I understand zo'e poi broda as lo me zo'e je poi'i broda.

selpa'i

poi as a definition for lo doesn't seem right.

xalbo

Why not?

xalbo

Isn't the point of lo broda essentially that it gives you a referent that broda's?

selpa'i

But zo'e is that referent already.s

xalbo

I don't see mi pinxe lo ckafi as saying "I'm drinking something. BTW, it turns out it's coffee. Who knew?"

Ilmen

Maybe defining zo'e from lo would be wiser than the other way round

xalbo

zo'e and lo co'e seem really, really close to me.

selpa'i

But do you see lo ckafi as a restricted reference?

xalbo

Intuitively I think i do.

selpa'i

Part of why it may seem weird is that zo'e does two different things

selpa'i

It can be "it" or "something"

Ilmen

Saying zo'e equals lo co'e is probably not more bad a definition than lo broda equals zo'e noi broda.

durka42

what a ringing endorsement

selpa'i

Do you start with a bigger reference set and then restrict it to coffee? lo ckafi goes right to coffee.

selpa'i

zo'e poi broda takes zo'e as a start and then restricts to those among it that also satisfy broda.

durka42

but zo'e is magic, so it changes to be the restricted set as soon as you restrict it?

selpa'i

lo broda -> zo'e noi broda is only true for a zo'e that refers to brodas

xalbo

And zo'e noi broda takes zo'e as a start, and then says that it already satisfies broda. Which seems far odder to me.

selpa'i

Which is why it's not a literal equality

selpa'i

But that oddness comes from zo'e doing both unspecified reference and definite reference

xalbo

But the way you say "and this is only true for a zo'e that satisfies broda" is to use poi. That's pretty much exactly what poi does.

selpa'i

The equality is only true if zo'e refers to brodas.

selpa'i

And zo'e takes its value from context

xalbo

It just seems like you keep saying things that sound, to me, entirely consistent with zo'e poi broda, while rejecting "zo'e poi broda". zo'e, but only if it satisfies broda.

selpa'i

That's a meta-statement about the equivalence.

xalbo

To me, the difference between restrictive and incidental is that I would expect the former to change the referent. If I saw zo'e poi broda cu brode, I would expect to find some zo'e that satisfies both. If I saw zo'e noi broda cu brode, I would expect that the very same zo'e I'd get if I just saw zo'e brode would also happen to satisfy broda. Which, in fact, is a whole lot closer to what I'd expect for lo brode cu broda.

selpa'i

The equivalence "lo broda" and "zo'e noi broda" holds only when zo'e refers to brodas. That's different from saying that lo broda means a zo'e that only refers to brodas.

selpa'i

zo'e poi starts with a bigger referent set

xalbo

That seems like a bizarre equivalence. What's the point of the noi broda, then?

xalbo

Why not just say "lo broda" equals "zo'e", but that only holds if zo'e refers to brodas"?

selpa'i

Exactly.

selpa'i

And noi broda only comments on the referent.

xalbo

But poi broda adds the bit about requiring it to satisfy broda, but takes it out of the metalanguage English qualification and into the actual equivalence.

xalbo

Why comment on a referent you've already restricted externally?

selpa'i

Why restrict that referent again if it's already the referent that makes the bridi true?

xalbo

Because we're adding part of the bridi that we also want to say is true (that the referent must also broda).

selpa'i

We already know that it does.

selpa'i

In the definition of lo broda.

selpa'i

(remember the "don't take it too literally")

selpa'i

That definition starts by knowing the referent of zo'e.

selpa'i

zo'e poi broda is like saying "The contextually obvious things that also broda (two properties need to be satisfied)", while zo'e noi broda is more like saying "Those contextually obvious things, and those things broda" (only one property, namely broda)

xalbo

I'm saying that if we define lo broda to mean zo'e poi broda, we'd need a lot less of the "don't take this too literally", "this only applies if it already broda", and other provisos.

xalbo

I don't understand.

xalbo

What are the two properties that must be satisfied for zo'e poi broda?

selpa'i

me zo'e and broda.

xalbo

And zo'e noi broda only requires broda, not me zo'e?

xalbo

Or am I misinterpreting "(only one property, namely broda)"?

selpa'i

The referent in the poi case includes only those individuals that satisfy both properties, whereas in the noi case the referent is zo'e, and it's (incidentally, that is, it has no effect on a quantifier) broda. This is quite similar to the difference between ro ko'a poi and ro ko'a noi.

selpa'i

One has a logical conjunction imposed on the referent

selpa'i

the other asserts both independently.

selpa'i

This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful

Ilmen

BPFK: "ko'a poi broda" equals "*lo* me ko'a je broda" -- According to this definition, defining "lo" from "zo'e poi" would lead to a circular definition, wouldn't it?

selpa'i

zo'e poi broda "those things among zo'e that broda"

xalbo

I still don't understand. What's wrong with restricting our referents to only those that broda? That seems to be a fundamental thing to what lo broda does, and it seems that even you are doing that, you're just doing it in English separately with "it's only true if zo'e satisfies broda"

selpa'i

I tried to make it very clear that that last part is *not* part of the definition

selpa'i

it is a comment *about* the definition

xalbo

I don't see the difference between "those things among zo'e that broda" and lo broda.

xalbo

To my mind, noi broda adds completely incidental information. That is, we could replace noi broda with goi ko'a, and then add a separate sentence ko'a broda, and get the same result (scope issues and grammar issues notwithstanding).

selpa'i

I do see a difference between "The dogs" and "The things among those things that are dogs" (though the latter reads a bit ambiguous)

selpa'i

Yes. noi broda adds a separate statement.

selpa'i

It seems your trouble is actually with the step from zo'e noi to lo, not vice versa

selpa'i

Or maybe you think it doesn't matter

xalbo

I'm not sure.

selpa'i

You can go from lo broda to zo'e noi broda in the gadri definition because the definition can choose that this zo'e refers to lo broda. Thus you can go from any lo brodi to zo'e noi brodi as long as you have a zo'e in mind that already refers to exactly what you want.

selpa'i

However

selpa'i

in the other direction, it's less true that you can simply replace the strings.

selpa'i

Going from zo'e noi broda to lo broda requires the zo'e to refer to lo broda. But not every zo'e refers to lo broda, it takes a special context.

selpa'i

If zo'e is tea, then zo'e noi broda won't be lo ckafi.

selpa'i

And that's why you cannot take it as a literal replacement.

xalbo

Then that makes using zo'e noi broda to explain lo broda less than worthless. You have to already have lo broda as context for zo'e, the noi broda adds literally nothing, and it only works when it already works.