Talk:species

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Posted by pycyn on Mon 21 of June, 2004 22:44 GMT posts: 2388

I have posted notes for a first revision of the species paper as a comment to that paper.

xorxes was, of course, right; it can be done without species, using only proeprties (and what goes with them in Lojban).

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 22 of June, 2004 15:26 GMT posts: 1912

I'm not sure I have digested everything yet, but here are some comments.

pc: > {lo broda cu brode} iff *P overlaps Q and S(P) > intersects S(Q) > Remember, �intersects� is a more stringent requirement > than mere mingling.

Is it really necessary to separate intensional broda from the rest? With XS-lo, the interpretation would be P overlaps Q whatever brode is. (And any {naku} would say that P does not overlap Q, not that it does overlap ~Q.)

> For every property P there is a set S(P) = {x : Px} > For every set s, there is a property P(s) such that s = {x :P(s)x}

Does this mean that for each P there is one and only one set S(P), and for each s there is one and only one property P(s)? The second one doesn't sound right.

> So, s = M(P(s)) and P = P(M(P))

If there can be many properties corresponding to the same set, then the first one might mean that for any P(s), s=M(P(s)), the second one that there is some P(M(P)) such that P=P(M(P))

> i is an individual concept iff i is a property that pervades > no other property. (i may overlap and number of other property > and � with at most one exception � does.)

The concepts "... is 2" and "... is 1+1" seem to pervade each other, so neither is an individual concept. (Or are they both the same concept?) What would be an example of an individual concept? What is the possible exception, "nothingness"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 22 of June, 2004 15:26 GMT posts: 2388

A> Yes. Not doing so is the temptation that kills so many attempts to do things with properties. P overlaps Q in no wise gurantees that S(P) mingles with S(Q), though the converse does seem to hold. thus the compromise given. And, of course, in the intensional contexts, the mingling is largely irrelevant. I wish I could think of a way around this since the dual system is irritating. but I can't see it — except to reverse the procedure and make the intensional the norm and add a special clause for all the intensional ones. And that is merely a stylistic difference, without substance. If your system really works the way you claim and your understanding of overlap is the same as mine, then your system is seriously flawed in a more concrete way than usual.

B> I am not sure you can pull this off and still get a meaningful transfer of negations. To be sure, negation doesn't transfer as nicely as one would like anyhow, but it does doe so in enough cases to make it useful to be able to mark it. And, of course, we need in any case to be able to say that P does overlap -Q.

C> Not one and only one, but at least one. A given set may be the extension of several intensions, but each intension determines a unique set (which may be equally determined by some ther intension). I see that is not clear and that I use it ambiguously later. I'll clean it up.

D> Yes; see above.

E> If they are ic and pervade one another, they are identical — is the way it goes. I'm not sure that these are cases of that sort, but, since the connection seems analytic, I suppose they are. The exception is the null property, the "nexus" of no semantic threads. I suppose that "nothingness" comes about as close as any natural language can come to expressing it.

Jorge Llamb�as wrote: I'm not sure I have digested everything yet, but here are some comments.

pc: > {lo broda cu brode} iff *P overlaps Q and S(P) > intersects S(Q) > Remember, �intersects� is a more stringent requirement > than mere mingling.

A>Is it really necessary to separate intensional broda from the rest? With XS-lo, the interpretation would be P overlaps Q whatever brode is. (B>And any {naku} would say that P does not overlap Q, not that it does overlap ~Q.)

> For every property P there is a set S(P) = {x : Px} > For every set s, there is a property P(s) such that s = {x :P(s)x}

C>Does this mean that for each P there is one and only one set S(P), and for each s there is one and only one property P(s)? The second one doesn't sound right.

> So, s = M(P(s)) and P = P(M(P))

D>If there can be many properties corresponding to the same set, then the first one might mean that for any P(s), s=M(P(s)), the second one that there is some P(M(P)) such that P=P(M(P))

> i is an individual concept iff i is a property that pervades > no other property. (i may overlap any number of other property > and � with at most one exception � does.)

E>The concepts "... is 2" and "... is 1+1" seem to pervade each other, so neither is an individual concept. (Or are they both the same concept?) What would be an example of an individual concept? What is the possible exception, "nothingness"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 22 of June, 2004 15:27 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Yes. Not doing so is the temptation that kills so many attempts to do > things with properties. P overlaps Q in no wise gurantees that S(P) mingles > with S(Q), though the converse does seem to hold. thus the compromise given.

Why "thus"? The assumption seems to be that we must guarantee mingling whenever mingling could be relevant, but I don't see why that is such an absolute requirement. We have other ways to guarantee mingling: {su'o broda cu brode}.

> And, of course, in the intensional contexts, the mingling is largely > irrelevant. I wish I could think of a way around this since the dual system > is irritating. but I can't see it — except to reverse the procedure and > make the intensional the norm and add a special clause for all the > intensional ones. And that is merely a stylistic difference, without > substance. If your system really works the way you claim and your > understanding of overlap is the same as mine, then your system is seriously > flawed in a more concrete way than usual.

What is the flaw?

> I am not sure you can pull this off and still get a meaningful transfer > of negations. To be sure, negation doesn't transfer as nicely as one would > like anyhow, but it does doe so in enough cases to make it useful to be able > to mark it. And, of course, we need in any case to be able to say that P > does overlap -Q.

We have ways of saying that: {lo broda cu me lo na brode} is the most obvious one. Or, if you still don't know what {me} means, use whatever relationship expresses overlap between the two arguments {lo broda} and {lo na brode}. Using naku, which denies that a relationship holds, to affirm instead that some other relationship holds is, in my opinion, an unnecessary complication. (And you will have to deal with negation in the multiple argument cases too, which don't convert so easily to overlap talk.)

> If they are ic and pervade one another, they are identical — is the way > it goes. I'm not sure that these are cases of that sort, but, since the > connection seems analytic, I suppose they are.

OK. Not sure what you will be using "individual concepts" for, then. "...is 2" and "...is 1+1" are intensionally different, i.e. different properties, even though by your definition they are the same individual concept.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 22 of June, 2004 15:27 GMT posts: 2388

A>Well, I think we were talking about thinks like either {su'o broda cu brode} or {lo broda cu brode}, in both of which mingling is relevant. Sure, if it weren't we could ignore it, but it almost always is — and certainly is in the cases where I have called for it.

B> That it can't distinguish between overlap and mingling when the distinction is crucial — as it usually is.

C> {me} can't be the magic bullet for solving all problems (though I have to admit that JCB used it thus for a while. But even if it were, why would we want this periphrasis in place of a straightforward distinction that was nicely built into the language 50 years ago and hasn't been challenged up to now (though occasionally misused)?

D> ISuppose they are intesnionally distinct; what follows from that is that they do not pervade one another. To be sure, it is hard to imagine a world in which they had different extensions, but, if they are intensionally distinct, there must be at; least one such, which proves they do not pervade one another. In a word, the two concepts, intensionally distinct and pervade one another, do not hang together. An individual concept is a property unique to a — real or imaginary — individual. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > Yes. Not doing so is the temptation that kills so many attempts to do > things with properties. P overlaps Q in no wise gurantees that S(P) mingles > with S(Q), though the converse does seem to hold. thus the compromise given.

A>Why "thus"? The assumption seems to be that we must guarantee mingling whenever mingling could be relevant, but I don't see why that is such an absolute requirement. We have other ways to guarantee mingling: {su'o broda cu brode}.

> And, of course, in the intensional contexts, the mingling is largely > irrelevant. I wish I could think of a way around this since the dual system > is irritating. but I can't see it — except to reverse the procedure and > make the intensional the norm and add a special clause for all the > intensional ones. And that is merely a stylistic difference, without > substance. If your system really works the way you claim and your > understanding of overlap is the same as mine, then your system is seriously > flawed in a more concrete way than usual.

B>What is the flaw?

> I am not sure you can pull this off and still get a meaningful transfer > of negations. To be sure, negation doesn't transfer as nicely as one would > like anyhow, but it does doe so in enough cases to make it useful to be able > to mark it. And, of course, we need in any case to be able to say that P > does overlap -Q.

C>We have ways of saying that: {lo broda cu me lo na brode} is the most obvious one. Or, if you still don't know what {me} means, use whatever relationship expresses overlap between the two arguments {lo broda} and {lo na brode}. Using naku, which denies that a relationship holds, to affirm instead that some other relationship holds is, in my opinion, an unnecessary complication. (And you will have to deal with negation in the multiple argument cases too, which don't convert so easily to overlap talk.)

> If they are ic and pervade one another, they are identical — is the way > it goes. I'm not sure that these are cases of that sort, but, since the > connection seems analytic, I suppose they are.

D>OK. Not sure what you will be using "individual concepts" for, then. "...is 2" and "...is 1+1" are intensionally different, i.e. different properties, even though by your definition they are the same individual concept.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 22 of June, 2004 15:27 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > That it can't distinguish between overlap and mingling when the > distinction is crucial — as it usually is.

But it can:

lo broda cu brode - overlap su'o broda cu brode - mingling

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 22 of June, 2004 20:31 GMT posts: 2388

Well, then rather to my surprise it turns out that both {lo cinfo cu fetsi} and {lo cinfo cu nakni} are true. Indeed, so is {lo tirxu cu blabi}. But, if that is the case, then — outside of intensional contexts — there is no difference between {su'o broda} and {lo broda}. This is not at all the imprssion you have given over the last few years. I should add that, as far as I can see, there is no difference in intensional contexts either, unless the context specifies that in it there are to be no broda. Notice that the difference between {lo} and {su'o} in extensional contexts does not rest on the distinction between overlap and mingling but on the distinction between mingling and intersection. Both reduce to overlap in the intensional case, where differences in actual distribution do not apply. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > That it can't distinguish between overlap and mingling when the > distinction is crucial — as it usually is.

But it can:

lo broda cu brode - overlap su'o broda cu brode - mingling

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 22 of June, 2004 20:31 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Notice that the > difference between {lo} and {su'o} in extensional contexts does not rest on > the distinction between overlap and mingling but on the distinction between > mingling and intersection. Both reduce to overlap in the intensional case, > where differences in actual distribution do not apply.

XS-lo does not distinguish between mingling and intersection, or indeed any other distributions. The instance distribution is simply not a part of the claim. If you want to infer something about distribution you have to deduce it from context or ask the speaker for more specific information.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 22 of June, 2004 20:48 GMT posts: 2388

Well, then {lo broda cu brode} means exactly the same thing as {su'o broda cu brode} — contrary to what you have often said — and I don't see what all the fuss was about. Intersection is an attempt to make sense of your repeated claim that {lo broda cu brode} amd a general claim that {su'o broda cu brode} did not. If you no longer hold that view (which has beena peculiar one from the get-go), then we pretty much agree on everything and I can drop all of this except the renewed suggetion that , since you don't need it, you get rid of Mr. Broda. jllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:pc: > Notice that the > difference between {lo} and {su'o} in extensional contexts does not rest on > the distinction between overlap and mingling but on the distinction between > mingling and intersection. Both reduce to overlap in the intensional case, > where differences in actual distribution do not apply.

XS-lo does not distinguish between mingling and intersection, or indeed any other distributions. The instance distribution is simply not a part of the claim. If you want to infer something about distribution you have to deduce it from context or ask the speaker for more specific information.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Tue 22 of June, 2004 21:33 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Well, then {lo broda cu brode} means exactly the same thing as {su'o broda cu > brode} — contrary to what you have often said — and I don't see what all > the fuss was about.

We must be speaking different languages. I say that {lo broda cu brode} makes no claim about instances, and from that you conclude that it's exactly the same thing as making the claim about at least one instance. {su'o da poi broda} is just not interreplaceable with {zo'e noi broda}. One claim is much more precise than the other. Sometimes we want such extra precision, sometimes we don't.

> Intersection is an attempt to make sense of your > repeated claim that {lo broda cu brode} amd a general claim that {su'o broda > cu brode} did not.

It can be used to make a more general claim, yes, in the right context. {zo'e} is very context-sensitive. It does not always make a general claim. If you present a sentence out of the blue with no context, the general claim tends to be the first that comes to mind, that's all.

> If you no longer hold that view (which has beena peculiar > one from the get-go), then we pretty much agree on everything and I can drop > all of this except the renewed suggetion that , since you don't need it, you > get rid of Mr. Broda.

I have no particular attachment to Mr Broda. He is not mentioned in the proposed definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 22 of June, 2004 22:22 GMT posts: 2388

So, we're back to {lo} is general — or just more vague --than {su'o}. Not it is strictly not possible to be more vague than {su'o} unless you allow that the number might be zero. On the other hand, I present you with a notion for {lo} that is as vague as {su'o} but neither implies {su'o} nor is implied by it. Whereas, your {lo} is both, if it is to do its job.

Your second attempt here (less a failure than the first), is that {lo} is gnerally used to make general claims, but not always/ That is the meaning of {lo} that I have advocated for some time — even at the beginning of the species paper. It also does away with Mr. Broda codswallop and leaves {lo} and {su'o} materially equivalent still. I doubt that {zo'e} is more context sensitive than intersection, by the way — as I noted in the first revision.

I wonmdered what happened to Mr. Broda (I still do), but at least he has vanished after all this time. I hope that the lunacy that went with him has gone too, but vestiges (mild psychoses?) still seem to be around. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > Well, then {lo broda cu brode} means exactly the same thing as {su'o broda cu > brode} — contrary to what you have often said — and I don't see what all > the fuss was about.

We must be speaking different languages. I say that {lo broda cu brode} makes no claim about instances, and from that you conclude that it's exactly the same thing as making the claim about at least one instance. {su'o da poi broda} is just not interreplaceable with {zo'e noi broda}. One claim is much more precise than the other. Sometimes we want such extra precision, sometimes we don't.

> Intersection is an attempt to make sense of your > repeated claim that {lo broda cu brode} amd a general claim that {su'o broda > cu brode} did not.

It can be used to make a more general claim, yes, in the right context. {zo'e} is very context-sensitive. It does not always make a general claim. If you present a sentence out of the blue with no context, the general claim tends to be the first that comes to mind, that's all.

> If you no longer hold that view (which has beena peculiar > one from the get-go), then we pretty much agree on everything and I can drop > all of this except the renewed suggetion that , since you don't need it, you > get rid of Mr. Broda.

I have no particular attachment to Mr Broda. He is not mentioned in the proposed definitions.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Posted by xorxes on Fri 18 of June, 2004 20:36 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Negation. Species are virtually a stone wall to negation. The fact that lo > broda does not mingle with lo brode does not mean that it mingles with the > complement of lo brode, for it may have no specimens at all. Similarly, the > fact that lo broda does not intersect with lo brode – even if it does have > specimens – does not mean that it intersects with the complement, for > neither side may have made it up to the break point for either species (the > rules require that zero specimens mingling cannot be intersection and all > specimens mingling is intersection, but does not limit the choices in > between). In the opposite direction, the fact that lo broda mingles or > intersects with the complement of lo brode does not mean that it may not do > so with le brode itself; the break point may be below 0.5. So, negation > passes through species talk in neither direction.

That's all unobjectionable, but we may be thinking of different things by "pass through negation".

All I mean by that is that ordering the terms {lo broda naku brode} and {naku lo broda cu brode} gives both times the same meaning, namely that lo broda does not mingle with brode. "brodas don't brode", "it is not the case that brodas brode").

To say what lo broda does with the complement of brode I have to use {na'e brode}, i.e. lo broda does/doesn't mingle with non-brode. ("brodas are/aren't non-brodes".)

You seem to be taking {naku brode} as equivalent to {na'e brode}. Do you extend that to {brode naku} as well? How do you read {lo broda cu brode naku}? I take {naku}, wherever it occurs, as a negation that the relationship brode holds, not as modifying the relationship.

My other objection is the ever recurring one about existential import:

> First, quantifiers apply only to existents; an unnegated quantifier on a > species that has no specimens automatically generates falsehood.

I would say "a particular quantifier" instead of "an unnegated quantifier", but it doesn't really matter in practice. We hardly ever quantify over nonexistents in contexts where they are nonexistents.

Other than that, nice story!

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 2388

A>Well, that is never what I meant by {lo broda naku brode}, nor does it seem to be what CLL nor common sense would have it mean. The {na'e} doesn't work since {na'e} is not contradictory negation but only contrary (well, you can change that too, but then you have to get a new contrary and on and on).

B> See above. I never can figure out what I mean by {ta brode naku}; I tend to take it as the same as {ta na brode} (i.e. {naku ta cu brode}) when there is nothing following it in the sentence and to negate only what follows it if there is something there. Your way of soing things makes life a lot easier, fo course, but it ain't Lojban and it leaves a lot unsaid. I say: suck it up and learn how to do quantifiers (I know you do, so the point is merely rhetorical).

C>Well, we have been through this way too often. Suffice to say, I am here borrowing from logic books and so keep the assumptions of logic. I think it is probably the case that I need that for some of the details in the application of the theory as well, but I suspect I could work arounf that if there were any reason to.

I am hoping to see a similarly throrough (and probably clearer) version of this for xorlo (but I have been asking for that for years now). Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > Negation. Species are virtually a stone wall to negation. The fact that lo > broda does not mingle with lo brode does not mean that it mingles with the > complement of lo brode, for it may have no specimens at all. Similarly, the > fact that lo broda does not intersect with lo brode – even if it does have > specimens – does not mean that it intersects with the complement, for > neither side may have made it up to the break point for either species (the > rules require that zero specimens mingling cannot be intersection and all > specimens mingling is intersection, but does not limit the choices in > between). In the opposite direction, the fact that lo broda mingles or > intersects with the complement of lo brode does not mean that it may not do > so with le brode itself; the break point may be below 0.5. So, negation > passes through species talk in neither direction.

That's all unobjectionable, but we may be thinking of different things by "pass through negation".

A>All I mean by that is that ordering the terms {lo broda naku brode} and {naku lo broda cu brode} gives both times the same meaning, namely that lo broda does not mingle with brode. "brodas don't brode", "it is not the case that brodas brode").

To say what lo broda does with the complement of brode I have to use {na'e brode}, i.e. lo broda does/doesn't mingle with non-brode. ("brodas are/aren't non-brodes".)

B>You seem to be taking {naku brode} as equivalent to {na'e brode}. Do you extend that to {brode naku} as well? How do you read {lo broda cu brode naku}? I take {naku}, wherever it occurs, as a negation that the relationship brode holds, not as modifying the relationship.

My other objection is the ever recurring one about existential import:

> First, quantifiers apply only to existents; an unnegated quantifier on a > species that has no specimens automatically generates falsehood.

C>I would say "a particular quantifier" instead of "an unnegated quantifier", but it doesn't really matter in practice. We hardly ever quantify over nonexistents in contexts where they are nonexistents.

Other than that, nice story!

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > And all of this does what? Well, assuming that we use {lo broda} to talk > about the species Broda, then strictly speaking {lo broda} ought to occur > only in sentences involving specimens, intersections, minglings, inclusions, > loci, overlaps and perversions (for none of which concepts does Lojban have > an adequate expression at the moment).

Maybe {malselcinse} for one of those... :-)

zo'o u'i

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Fri 18 of June, 2004 21:55 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Well, that is never what I meant by {lo broda naku brode}, nor does it seem > to be what CLL nor common sense would have it mean. The {na'e} doesn't work > since {na'e} is not contradictory negation but only contrary (well, you can > change that too, but then you have to get a new contrary and on and on).

I don't know what you mean by {naku broda} then.

How do you read:

ko'a ko'e naku broda

a) The relationship broda(ko'a, ko'e) does not hold, i.e. NOT broda(ko'a, ko'e) b) There is a relationship, other than broda, that holds between ko'a and ko'e. i.e. non-broda(ko'a, ko'e)

Is there a third possibility that I'm missing?

If you read it as b), then I don't think that's what CLL or common sense would have it mean. If as a), then you agree with me, but then the position of {naku} in the sentence is irrelevant.

Or better still, to give an example with what you say are the only possible constants:

roda rode zo'u da de naku broda

Is that:

a) for every x and every y, NOT broda(x,y) b) for every x and every y, other-than-broda(x,y) c) something else?

> I never can figure out what I mean by {ta brode naku}; I tend > to take it as the same as {ta na brode} (i.e. {naku ta cu brode}) when there > is nothing following it in the sentence and to negate only what follows it if > there is something there.

Then for you {naku lo broda cu brode} = {lo broda cu brode naku}, but they are both different from {lo broda naku brode}?

> Your way of soing things makes life a lot easier, > fo course, but it ain't Lojban and it leaves a lot unsaid.

I disagree it ain't Lojban. What does it leave unsaid?

> I am hoping to see a similarly throrough (and probably clearer) version of > this for xorlo (but I have been asking for that for years now).

Aside from that point about naku in front of the selbri (and I don't understand what you mean by it, if not na'e), and the minor point about the import of quantifiers, everything you present seems to map to the proposal as far as I can understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT posts: 2388

A>The contradictory property of {broda}, the proerty has by everything that does not have broda. B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes through.

C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL, as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

D> As far as I can tell, yes.

E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

F>Then why mess around with Mr Bunny for the last xty x years? (But you really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never see why.)

Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > Well, that is never what I meant by {lo broda naku brode}, nor does it seem > to be what CLL nor common sense would have it mean. The {na'e} doesn't work > since {na'e} is not contradictory negation but only contrary (well, you can > change that too, but then you have to get a new contrary and on and on). A>I don't know what you mean by {naku broda} then.

How do you read:

B> ko'a ko'e naku broda

a) The relationship broda(ko'a, ko'e) does not hold, i.e. NOT broda(ko'a, ko'e) b) There is a relationship, other than broda, that holds between ko'a and ko'e. i.e. non-broda(ko'a, ko'e)

Is there a third possibility that I'm missing?

If you read it as b), then I don't think that's what CLL or common sense would have it mean. If as a), then you agree with me, but then the position of {naku} in the sentence is irrelevant.

Or better still, to give an example with what you say are the only possible constants:

C>roda rode zo'u da de naku broda

Is that:

a) for every x and every y, NOT broda(x,y) b) for every x and every y, other-than-broda(x,y) c) something else?

> I never can figure out what I mean by {ta brode naku}; I tend > to take it as the same as {ta na brode} (i.e. {naku ta cu brode}) when there > is nothing following it in the sentence and to negate only what follows it if > there is something there.

D>Then for you {naku lo broda cu brode} = {lo broda cu brode naku}, but they are both different from {lo broda naku brode}?

> Your way of soing things makes life a lot easier, > fo course, but it ain't Lojban and it leaves a lot unsaid.

E>I disagree it ain't Lojban. What does it leave unsaid?

> I am hoping to see a similarly throrough (and probably clearer) version of > this for xorlo (but I have been asking for that for years now).

F>Aside from that point about naku in front of the selbri (and I don't understand what you mean by it, if not na'e), and the minor point about the import of quantifiers, everything you present seems to map to the proposal as far as I can understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT posts: 2388

Oops! You know I am a terrible typist, but now you know where my mind wanders to as .well Jorge Llamb�as wrote:pc: > And all of this does what? Well, assuming that we use {lo broda} to talk > about the species Broda, then strictly speaking {lo broda} ought to occur > only in sentences involving specimens, intersections, minglings, inclusions, > loci, overlaps and perversions (for none of which concepts does Lojban have > an adequate expression at the moment).

Maybe {malselcinse} for one of those... :-)

zo'o u'i

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with > {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes > through.

And species always exist, don't they?

> C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like > "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage > seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do > you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL, > as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

We need consider naku only. If the term is not quantified, it can pass through naku unchanged. If quantified, the quantifier gets inverted.

> E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it > loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

Not at all. {naku ro lo broda} = {su'o lo broda naku}, {ro lo broda naku} = {naku su'o lo broda} and {lo broda naku} = {naku lo broda}, as with any other unquantified term.

> (But you > really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never > see why.)

I don't think we disagree about the interaction of negation and quantifiers, do we?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sat 19 of June, 2004 05:33 GMT posts: 2388

G>Yes; but would not occur — as such — in this context. Note that I deliberately did not use {lo broda} here, but something very close to a logical proper name. {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts. You cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally true)

H> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode. (notice some of these problems arise with proper names as well, even without splitting the referent into parts).

I> I am sorry, I could have sworn you just said that {ro broda naku brode} was the same as {ro broda cu na'e brode}, for which these moves do not work. Or are you taking {na'e} as {naku} rather than the other way. As noted just above, negation does not go through {lo broda} at all validly and fails for some names as well. That is, the claim about unquantified terms is false here. And unexplained in your system (both how it works and why you would want it).

J> See above. .. Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with > {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes > through.

G>And species always exist, don't they?

> C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like > "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage > seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do > you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL, > as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

H>We need consider naku only. If the term is not quantified, it can pass through naku unchanged. If quantified, the quantifier gets inverted.

> E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it > loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

I>Not at all. {naku ro lo broda} = {su'o lo broda naku}, {ro lo broda naku} = {naku su'o lo broda} and {lo broda naku} = {naku lo broda}, as with any other unquantified term.

> (But you > really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never > see why.)

J>I don't think we disagree about the interaction of negation and quantifiers, do we?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sat 19 of June, 2004 20:27 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that > Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so > its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts.

I thought {lo broda cu brode}, in species talk, meant that Broda overlaps Brode, not necessarily intersects.

> You > cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu > brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally > true)

I agree with the first part (su'o brode). I'm not sure what you mean by "validly quantify". Is it a problem to quantify over species?

mi nitcu lo tanxe e lo dakli -> mi nitcu re da

> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare > {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to > in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to > out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode.

I don't understand why you bring specimens in, since {lo broda naku brode} should not be about specimens of lo broda or lo brode.

The way I see it:

lo prenu cu me lo klama People are goers.

That says that lo prenu overlaps lo klama. In simple cases like this one it can be simplified to {lo prenu cu klama}, but this move is not always availableble (for example from {me lo mi broda}), and the reverse move is not always possible: {lo broda cu brode lo brodi} could be {lo broda cu me lo brode be lo brodi} or {lo brodi cu me lo se brode be lo broda}.

For pervasions we can use {klesi}:

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu Rabbits are a kind of animal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sun 20 of June, 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 2388

A> Gee, I hope I said "intrersects;" "overlaps" would not say anything about what is, only about what may be. B> The point is — in both cases — that {lo broda cu brode} does not say that the species Broda is a brode (it will usually not be, since most properties are not of species but of ordinary things; the species Broda is also nota broda, for the same reason).

C> This is one of those cases, as I say, where what is involved is the intensional part. I confess I had not thought about the intensions of quantifiers (or the quantification of intensions), so I am unsure what to make of {mi nitcu re da}. I'll get back to you on that. All I meant in the original part was that one cannot infer from {lo broda cu brode} to {su'o broda cu brode} (or maybe it will be snappier — and more accurate — to make that {su'o broda zo'u by brode}). Nice points both, but not damning so far as I can see now.

D>Intersection is about specimens since it is essentially about mingling [ now think that terminology is exactly backwards except that there must be a better term than "mingling"] and that is about some one thing being a specimen of both lo broda and lo brode. Otherwise there would be no connection to what is.

E> As always, I am unsure what examples with {me} mean because I don;t keep track of its meaning-ot-the-week. However, it appears here to somehow shift to intensions — which is something we do need to be able to do — so that it means lo broda overlaps lo brode (brodeness is part of the meaning of "broda" at least in posse). The mover from that to {lo broda cu brode} is never valid (though it goes through sometimes, especially if lo brode pervades lo broda and there are brodas), for there may either be no brodas or the may all be naku brode. I can't follow the rest of your example, partly because of {me}, I am sure, and partly because it seems to be based on some assumptions that I do not make and have not hinted at being the case. I admit that I cannot even formulate what those assumptions might be at the moment. Tell me, please, the mechanics of the inferences you are describing that go through and of those that do not.

F> Hell, we could use {mlatu}, but it doesn't make sense to. And it is not much farther from "pervasion" than {klesi} is. Pervasion is about intensions (properties and loci) and {klesi} (except {klesi3}) is about sets and specimens, extensions. (I can't think of a way to twist things around so that {klesi3} could be used: pervasion needs two properties, not one.) Your example is dead right for what you want to say and its truth ultimately derives from the tact that lo danlu pervades lo ractu, but it does not mention this latter fact — which would have to be said, I think, as {lo danlu cu [pervades] lo ractu} (which is, I gather, what you thought you said. [I do think you are right in reversing the order of terms here — and so of needing another expression than "pervasion." Back to the papers for a while then.)

Jorge Llamb�as wrote: pc: > {lo broda cu brode} is a convenient way of saying that > Broda intersects Brode, but Brode is preumably not in that intersection, so > its existence is not relevant; only the existence of brodas counts.

A>I thought {lo broda cu brode}, in species talk, meant that Broda overlaps Brode, not necessarily intersects.

> You > cannot validly quantify from {lo broda cu brode} to either {su'o brode cu > brode} or even {su'o da cu brode} (though, of course, these are generally > true)

B>I agree with the first part (su'o brode). I'm not sure what you mean by "validly quantify". Is it a problem to quantify over species?

C>mi nitcu lo tanxe e lo dakli -> mi nitcu re da

> I knew you wouldn't like this, but negations don't validly go past bare > {lo broda} in either direction (though generally do, to be sure): from out to > in because lo broda may have no specimens (ther are no brodas), from in to > out because lo broda may have specimens in both Brode and Naku Brode.

D>I don't understand why you bring specimens in, since {lo broda naku brode} should not be about specimens of lo broda or lo brode.

The way I see it:

E>lo prenu cu me lo klama People are goers.

That says that lo prenu overlaps lo klama. In simple cases like this one it can be simplified to {lo prenu cu klama}, but this move is not always availableble (for example from {me lo mi broda}), and the reverse move is not always possible: {lo broda cu brode lo brodi} could be {lo broda cu me lo brode be lo brodi} or {lo brodi cu me lo se brode be lo broda}.

F> For pervasions we can use {klesi}:

lo ractu cu klesi lo danlu Rabbits are a kind of animal.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sun 20 of June, 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > Gee, I hope I said "intrersects;" "overlaps" would not say anything about > what is, only about what may be.

In that case, I don't understand the species thing at all. You want {lo tanxe cu se nitcu} to mean that Tanxe intersects Se nitcu? There is an object that is a specimen of both lo tanxe and lo se nitcu?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sun 20 of June, 2004 08:12 GMT posts: 2388

Yuck!Ptui! Not at all. {nitcu2} is one of those places that triggers a dip into the intensional side of a species. I haven't written out the full definition yet but it is something about a void that will be filled only by a locus of lo tanxe (way too rough to stand much scutiny, but something along that line). Something like {lo se nitcu overlaps lo tanxe} or {lo tanxe overlaps lo se nitcu} is involved. In any case, {nitcu2} is about properties, not sets — as it were. I don't like the random way that these brivla turn up — or the places where they turn up, but I don't see any way (now) to make them more overtly different. You just have to learn (or test each case before you use it). Jorge Llamb�as wrote:pc: > Gee, I hope I said "intrersects;" "overlaps" would not say anything about > what is, only about what may be.

In that case, I don't understand the species thing at all. You want {lo tanxe cu se nitcu} to mean that Tanxe intersects Se nitcu? There is an object that is a specimen of both lo tanxe and lo se nitcu?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sun 20 of June, 2004 08:13 GMT posts: 1912

Let's see what we have and what we need in terms of vocabulary.

I will use ti, ta, tu for objects, lo broda, lo brode, lo brodi for species, lo'i ro broda is the "extensional aspect" of lo broda, lo ka ce'u broda is the "intensional aspect" of lo broda.

{ti cmima lo'i ro broda} says that object ti is a member of lo'i ro broda; i.e. ti is a specimen of lo broda.

{ti ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} says that object ti bears the property lo ka ce'u broda; i.e. ti is a locus/focus of lo broda.

Both can be said as {ti broda}, but here we lost the info on whether the relationship between object ti and species lo broda is mediated by the extensional or the intensional aspect of lo broda. In general, it could be either.

{lo broda cu cmima lo'i ro broda}, brodas are members of the set of all brodas. {lo broda cu ckaji lo ka ce'u broda}, brodas are bearers of the property of brodaing.

We don't have gismu for "object x1 is a specimen of species x2" or for "object x1 is a focus/locus of species x2". I will use mupli for the latter (even though that is not how it is defined in the gismu list) and, given that every specimen is also a focus/locus, I will use {cmimupli} for specimen. (The gismu list would allow a simple cmima for this too, since x2 of cmima is not restricted to sets.)

We also don't have a gismu to relate the extensional aspect to the intensional aspect of a species. Such a brivla would be useful, either "x1 is the set defined by property x2" or "x1 is the property defining set x2". I propose {kaiselcmi} for the first (based on x1 selcmi be lo ckaji be x2) and {cmiselkai} for the other (based on x1 selkai be lo cmima be x2}.

For "x1 mingles with x2" I propose {cmimupkansa}, based on x1 kansa x2 lo ka su'o da cmimupli ce'u, or simply {cmikansa}, and for "x1 overlaps x2" I propose {mupkansa}, based on x1 kansa x2 lo ka su'o da mupli ce'u.

I would use {klesi} for "x1 is pervaded by x2", even though that is not its definition in the gismu list, and {cmikle} for "x1 is included in x2".

(I leave intersection out for the moment because I'm not quite sure I understand it, but we might use kruca or something based on kruca for it.)

To summarize, I propose we use:

cmima (or cmimupli): x1 is specimen of species x2 mupli: x1 is locus/focus of species x2 cmikansa: x1 mingles with x2 mupkansa: x1 overlaps x2 cmikle: x1 is included in x2 klesi: x1 is pervaded by x2

Now, if I understand correctly, you propose that {lo broda cu brode} should be read as {lo broda cu kruca cmikansa lo brode} or as {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode} depending on the meaning of brode (and of broda?). Why not say that it is always the more general {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode}? This is a more vague claim, but vagueness can always be reduced by either context or adding more explicit information. Removing precision is harder to do if we give the basic form too precise a meaning. The advantage of doing this is that you don't need to sort brodes into cmikansa expanding ans mupkansa expanding classes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Sun 20 of June, 2004 08:13 GMT posts: 2388

A> If you can point to it, it will be both. Reworking things as I go along, I am toying with doing it all with loci and thus simplifying the whole mess a bit, but so far the explanations get longer as the mechanism gets smaller. Every specimen is a locus, but not conversely — or maybe more exactly the infima species of every specimen is a locus. It doesn't matter in this context, since the context is extensional (I am assuming — there is no way to know outside of the definitions and {broda}, of course, doesn't have a definition) and will always get down to specimens. B> I would assume that {cmima} is a species term, but it is not obviously so, so I'll go along with this for a while. Ditto {katli}.

C> Have I slipped and used "focus" for "locus? I was afraid I would, since both are used and have useful analogies. Maybe I need a change in that corner of vocabulary (that is, change all 7 terms to something not so confusing and maybe even systematic looking). If {cmima} is a species word, then the sample sentence would be false, since lo broda is a species, not a specimen and lo'i broda is not a species. This is an argument for finding new words for these things, and, at least for now, {mupli} or a compound looks as good as anything.

D> {girzu} is in the right direction but has not the right sort of thing and a lot of froufrou. Maaybe it is a place to start looking, however. And {ckaji} is somewhere along the line, since the first place is unrestricted. But I suspect that would lead to confusion. The other suggestions seem to follow from your basic ones and so look OK (this is not a ringing endorsement, since I don't really like any of them. But I am working primarily with the species and so use the terms a lot, whereas the ordinary language can allow them to be a lot longer). {kruca} just is all wrong — as is, indeed, the word "intersection" bioth her and in math usage generally. To use it here would be malglico to the max.

E> Yes, working only with loci simplifies the mechanism greatly (as you say, intensional contexts become,just special cases of predicates without having to suddenly bring intensions into a discussion fo extensions). But then the rules for ordinary claims require a longer explanation, since we do have to get down to specimens at some point — or try to do intersection in terms of overlap and the locus relation. This is doable, but the explanation goes on and on, whereas dropping to specimens and working with just sums from the specimen relation seems fairly simple (although, come to think of it, the specimen value is a direct function of the locus value. Hmmmmm!) I think I am afraid that working only with the intensional aspect as far as it appears I can will in fact get me over into talking only about possibilities when I want to be talking only about realities (this is a professional hazard in this particular game to which just about everyone has succumbed in some way great or small). The (almost) all locus proposal is very Indian and thus very appealing to me, but I immediately get the whole Indian paradigm into my head again and know I don't want to go there. It is not obvious that I would have to however.

Jorge Llamb�as wrote:

Let's see what we have and what we need in terms of vocabulary.

I will use ti, ta, tu for objects, lo broda, lo brode, lo brodi for species, lo'i ro broda is the "extensional aspect" of lo broda, lo ka ce'u broda is the "intensional aspect" of lo broda.

{ti cmima lo'i ro broda} says that object ti is a member of lo'i ro broda; i.e. ti is a specimen of lo broda.

{ti ckaji lo ka ce'u broda} says that object ti bears the property lo ka ce'u broda; i.e. ti is a locus/focus of lo broda.

A>Both can be said as {ti broda}, but here we lost the info on whether the relationship between object ti and species lo broda is mediated by the extensional or the intensional aspect of lo broda. In general, it could be either.

B>{lo broda cu cmima lo'i ro broda}, brodas are members of the set of all brodas. {lo broda cu ckaji lo ka ce'u broda}, brodas are bearers of the property of brodaing.

C>We don't have gismu for "object x1 is a specimen of species x2" or for "object x1 is a focus/locus of species x2". I will use mupli for the latter (even though that is not how it is defined in the gismu list) and, given that every specimen is also a focus/locus, I will use {cmimupli} for specimen. (The gismu list would allow a simple cmima for this too, since x2 of cmima is not restricted to sets.)

D>We also don't have a gismu to relate the extensional aspect to the intensional aspect of a species. Such a brivla would be useful, either "x1 is the set defined by property x2" or "x1 is the property defining set x2". I propose {kaiselcmi} for the first (based on x1 selcmi be lo ckaji be x2) and {cmiselkai} for the other (based on x1 selkai be lo cmima be x2}.

For "x1 mingles with x2" I propose {cmimupkansa}, based on x1 kansa x2 lo ka su'o da cmimupli ce'u, or simply {cmikansa}, and for "x1 overlaps x2" I propose {mupkansa}, based on x1 kansa x2 lo ka su'o da mupli ce'u.

I would use {klesi} for "x1 is pervaded by x2", even though that is not its definition in the gismu list, and {cmikle} for "x1 is included in x2".

(I leave intersection out for the moment because I'm not quite sure I understand it, but we might use kruca or something based on kruca for it.)

To summarize, I propose we use:

cmima (or cmimupli): x1 is specimen of species x2 mupli: x1 is locus/focus of species x2 cmikansa: x1 mingles with x2 mupkansa: x1 overlaps x2 cmikle: x1 is included in x2 klesi: x1 is pervaded by x2

E>Now, if I understand correctly, you propose that {lo broda cu brode} should be read as {lo broda cu kruca cmikansa lo brode} or as {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode} depending on the meaning of brode (and of broda?). Why not say that it is always the more general {lo broda cu mupkansa lo brode}? This is a more vague claim, but vagueness can always be reduced by either context or adding more explicit information. Removing precision is harder to do if we give the basic form too precise a meaning. The advantage of doing this is that you don't need to sort brodes into cmikansa expanding ans mupkansa expanding classes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sun 20 of June, 2004 08:13 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > If you can point to it, it will be both.

I think it is possible to point to a locus through a specimen, meaning that the referent of the pronoun will be the locus and not necessarily the specimen. For example, I point to a red shirt and tell the seller "I want that one but in blue", {mi djica ta poi ku'i blanu}. {ta} refers to the kind of shirts for which the one on display is a specimen. The ku'i is necessary to override the more natural initial assumption that I'm pointing to the specimen rather than the locus.

> {kruca} just is all wrong — as > is, indeed, the word "intersection" bioth her and in math usage generally. > To use it here would be malglico to the max.

Well, not only glico in any case. I don't find it to be such a bad metaphor, since the intersection is the part that both intersectors have in common, or the subset with common members in the case of sets.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

clsnPosted by clsn on Tue 22 of June, 2004 15:26 GMT posts: 84

I'm only partly understanding this whole discussion anyway, but could someone possibly provide a brief definition of some key terms which I haven't been understanding? (Or a pointer to such):

I think I'm okay with members of sets, but "focus" and "locus" in this context I don't follow. Also "pervade" vs "intersect" vs "mingle"; what're these?

Thanks.

~mark

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Tue 22 of June, 2004 15:27 GMT posts: 2388

Well, I've gotten away from that terminology somewhat, but it is still around. A focus (it is supposed to be "locus" but I keep slipping) of a property is an object that has that property. Every focus (real ones) of P is a member of {x : Px}. Pervasion is harder: if you have overlap in mind and see it as related to ordinary intersection of sets, then pervasion is like inclusion only about properties not sets. Basically P pervades Q if every locus of P is a locus of Q (and, indeed, every possible locus of P would be a locus of Q were it actual). MIngling is just — confusingly — ordinary intersection of sets. Intersecting is — even more confusingly — intersecting of sets in a weighted way: not just by number but better Ps count for more than poorer ones in the counting. So an intersection in this sense is a special kind of intersection in the ordinary sense (mingling) "Mark E. Shoulson" wrote:I'm only partly understanding this whole discussion anyway, but could someone possibly provide a brief definition of some key terms which I haven't been understanding? (Or a pointer to such):

I think I'm okay with members of sets, but "focus" and "locus" in this context I don't follow. Also "pervade" vs "intersect" vs "mingle"; what're these?

Thanks.

~mark