Re: existential quantification

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> > "want" means "the existence of situation x2 pleases x1 and the nonexistence
> > of situation x2 displeases x1".
>
> On the other hand, it can also mean "the possession of object x2 pleases x1
> and the nonpossession of object x2 displeases x1".

This latter meaning is included within the former. Possibly the English
"want" is ambiguous. Note that your definition still involves sumti
raising. And note that it won't translate: "I want you to go", since
this has nothing to do with my possession of your going.

> "I want a box" should not in general be translated as {mi djica lo tanxe},
> nobody argues with that. But that is because "a box" there is an opaque
> reference to boxes, not because "want" can't meaningfully accept objects
> as its x2.

As I have just argued in a previous message, "want" can't meaningfully
accept objects as its x2 unless it is defined so that it can accept
objects as its x2, in which case reference must and should be transparent.

> I find "I want that box" to be a very valid relationship
> between "I" and "that box", both of which have clear referents.

Fine, fine. It's a useful shorthand, abbreviating the more elaborate
semantics into a more compact syntax. It would be a useful lujvo.
The x2 will be transparent, since opacity arises (we all seem to
agree) from intentional bridi with sumti containing a bridi.

> > All I'm suggesting is altering this
> > to: "the realization of x1's idea x2 pleases x1 and the nonrealization
> > of x2 displeases x1". It's a very slight change, and probably an
> > improvement, since the intentionality is reflected by the explicit
> > use of "siho".
>
> Ok, let me start from a different position. Let's say {djica} meant
> "x1 (person) wants x2 (object, transparent)".
>
> This allows us to say "I want that apple" without problems.
>
> There are other things that we'd like to say, like "I want an apple"
> (opaque) or "I want that you come" (an abstraction instead of an object).
>
> For the first one I already gave my proposed solutions. Either
> {mi djica lo'e plise} or {mi djica xe'e lo plise}.
> Now for the second one, the traditional way would be to use an event
> abstraction instead of an object: {lo nu do klama}, "at least one
> of all the events of you coming".

If an apple and an event can both be x2 I don't know what "djica" would
mean. The relation between x1 and x2 in "I want an apple" and "I
want you to go" is different. You must be more explicit about what
you think "djica" should mean.

> But, as you point out, what if you
> never come? How can I say that there is a relationship (namely djica)
> that holds between the referents of {mi} and of {lo nu do klama} when
> this last one has no referents?
> I think {mi djica xe'e lo nu do klama} works for this, just as in
> the case of apples.
> Another option is to go to something like you propose, but I would
> say {mi djica le du'u do klama}, similar to {mi jinvi le du'u do klama}.
> I don't have anything against {si'o} other than that I don't really
> understand what it means (not that I understand nu and du'u thoroughly,
> but I feel more comfortable with them).

The advantage of siho is that it reflects the intentionality of the
brivla's meaning: it crucially involves an idea.

> > The comparison with "sisku" I take as a gross slight.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean it that way.   :)
>
> > As presently
> > defined it makes no sense to me, and I think it is a candidate
> > for euthanasia. It won't get abolished, but I commend total
> > desuetude as a fitting fate for it.
>
> I predict that it will be used as I propose, i.e. someone looking
> for their umbrella will simply say {mi sisku le mi santa}.

I think you predict rightly. In that case, the present x2 of sisku should be
changed. The revised x2 would & should be transparent. To get an opque
reference, use "troci lo siho cohe".

> > I wonder whether the meanings of "want" and "seek" are in fact
> > more complex than you believe them to be.
>
> I have no doubt about it, but so are the meanings of any other verb
> that you care to mention.

Surely not. Most of the gismu are quite straightforward. "gerku", "pinji",
"ckafe" etc.

> I believe that a solution that works for
> all cases of opaque reference is better than individual solutions
> for each predicate that can take opaque references.

Your solution would "solve" the problem at one stroke, by providing
us with a way to express opaque reference. But it would be antilogical,
unlojbanic. There is a conflict between my desire for the syntax to
faifhfully reflect the semantics, and your desire for brevity. The
most I would be contented with is for both solutions to be adopted.
But I do feel that my solution should come first, with yours adopted
only if the abbreviatory device is generally felt to be needed.

----
And