Re: diversity

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

Jorge:
> > It is better to make the definition & sumti structure
> > of djica & co accurately reflect its true meaning (such that it may
> > give rise to opacity) rather than leave the definition & sumti structure
> > confused & patch it up by an opacity marker.
>
> What is a true meaning? Why would the sumti structure be confused if
> it accepts an object as well as an event?

By "true meaning" I mean "the sense the brivla actually has (rather
than some sense that we mistakenly believe it has)".

I have offered a couple of definitions for wanting, such as "the existence
of x2 pleases x1 and the nonexistence of x2 displeases x1". Say we take
that definition, then "mi djica lo plise" means "I want an apple to
exist". It wouldn't mean "I want to eat an apple". And if it can mean
"I want to eat an apple", then "mi djica lo nu mi cliva" could mean
"I want to eat my departre". This way lies nonsense.

> > (I am in favour of a kind of opacity marker that means "the following
> > sumti can't be exported to the prenex out of the abstraction containing
> > the bridi the sumti is sumti of".)
>
> That's {tu'a}. It already exists.

I mean a marker like $$$$ in "mi djica lo nu mi citka $$$$ lo plise"
where $$$$ rules out "da poi plise zohu mi djica lo nu mi citka da".
At present, I think, the zohu-form is not ruled out.

I don't think "mi djica lo nu mi citka tuha lo plise" would do the
job: it would mean I want to eat some abstraction. - Or have I got
that wrong?

> > If this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it is justified
> > in that the baby is as defective as the bathwater - in fact the problem
> > is with the baby more than with the bathwater. (Where baby = definition
> > & sumti structure of djica et al, & bathwater = opacity problem.)
>
> Then to be consistent we'd have to identify all those et als, and forbid
> any lujvo with similar characteristics. And whatever for?

It's not a matter of forbidding. It's a matter of being very clear
about when there is obligatory transparency. If we want an opaque
reference for a sumti, when the rules tell us that this sumti must
be transparent, then this circumstance means that to get the opque
reference we must use a different brivla which has a sumti structure
such that we can get an opaque reference.

I'm against a marker of opacity, and in favour of using alternative
brivla.

> > 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.
>
> Do you know what any of these mean:
>
> skicu     ski      describe
> x1 tells about/describes x2 (object/event/state) to audience x3
> with description x4 (property)
>
> spuda     spu      reply                'respond'
> x1 answers/replies to/responds to person/object/event/situation/stimulus
> x2 with response x3
>
> vajni vaj     vai  important            'significant'
> x1 (object/event) is important/significant to x2 (person/event)
> in aspect/for reason x3 (nu/ka)
>
> xamgu xag     xau  good
> x1 (object/event) is good/beneficial/nice/[acceptable] for x2 by standard x3
>
> zanru zar     zau  approve
> x1 approves of/gives favor to plan/action x2 (object/event)
>
> These are a few of the gismu that have object/event places. I don't think
> that the change in meaning when going from object to event in any of these
> is much different from the same for djica.

The difference from djica is that there isn't an implied bridi when the
varying sumti is an object. If I want a book then I want to have a book;
the real desideratum is the having, not the book. (I'm not saying it's
incoherent to have a brivla to translate "want a book", but I am
saying it's incoherent to use the same brivla for wanting a book
and wanting it to rain.)

I do understand (I think) the gismu you cite, & I don't at present
see a problem with one of the sumti being either an object or an
event. I would, though, wish to insist that the object is transparent,
and that if we think we want an opaque reference to an object then
what we really want is for the sumti to be an abstraction containing
a reference to that object.

> > > 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".
>
> Suppose it is revised and made transparent. What would {mi sisku lo'e tanxe}
> mean? Doesn't it mean something very close to "I'm looking for a box"?

Close, yes. "I seek the box. The box is sought by me. I seek Box."
By my understanding of "lohe", it merges all members of a category
into a single individual that all members are modelled on.
It implies "Every box is, by default, sought by me, unless it is
exceptional."

> > 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.
>
> Of course you can call it unlojbanic, I've done that a few times with
> things I don't like, but what's antilogical about it? Does it lead
> to any logical inconsistency?

"Antilogical" rather than "illogical". It sidesteps the problem,
instead of getting to the root of it. Your proposal suggests that
sumti have the semantic property [+/-opaque], & this obscures
the fact (or so I take it to be) that opacity in fact arises from
semantic structures in which an argument is contained within a
mental representation.

----
And