Re: solutions to sumti opacity

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

Jorge:
> > "Lohe gerku" does have an identifiable referent. There is only ever
> > one "lohe gerku", namely the "ideal/prototypical" dog - which is not
> > actually a dog but rather a concept or something transcendental.
>
> And what does seeing that concept then mean? Surely you don't hold that
> the light rays emanated from it? In {mi viska lo'e gerku} I understand
> what is the image perceived by {mi}, but I don't think I'm saying that
> the source of the light rays was necessarily a dog.

I think it means that there is a kind of ontologically ur-dog, such that
every dog is modelled on this ur-dog, & that we saw the ur-dog, and
we may assume for every dog. D, that unless D exceptionally deviates from
conformity with the ur-dog then  we saw D.

> > When I said "if X is a typical dog" I meant "if X is conceptualized as
> > an instance of the ideal/prototypical dog".
>
> Ok, a cat could be conceptualized as such an instance, I suppose.

What I *really really* meant was "if X is conceptualized as a non-deviant
instance of the ideal/prototypical dog". For most people this would
exclude cats, and also chihuahuas and dachshunds.

> > > Certainly the x2 will have to be transparent unless otherwise marked, but
> > > why is there implicit sumti raising in the transparent case?
> >
> > Because wanting involves two bridi: one for the desiderative attitude
> > and one for the desideratum.
>
> If the desideratum is a bridi, of course. My point is that the desideratum
> can equally well be an object.

On this one we're going round in circles. My contention is that there
is no consistent definition of "want" that allows for the x2 to be
an object or a bridi.
The easiest way to convince me otherwise is to offer me such a
consistent definition.

> > > How would you say "this is needed" with the siho-type x2? Something
> > > like {le si'o du ti se nitcu}, instead of {ti se nitcu}.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the possible referents of "ti" are.
>
> Things you can point to with your finger, I think.
>
> > If it can
> > refer to a thought then "ti" could be a siho-type x2. If you
> > want to refer to a book you need to read, then you would say
> > "lo siho mi tcidu ti kei se nitcu".
>
> That's different, I didn't want to say what I needed the book for,
> nor who needed it. The reason for the need goes in the x3 of nitcu anyway.

Okay: "lo siho ti cohe kei se nitcu".

> And "I need the book to read it" is slightly different from "I need to
> read the book".

Right. In "I need the book to read it", the desideratum is the speaker's
possession of the book, while in "I need to read the book" the
desideratum is the speaker's reading the book.

> > > Is there anything that is easier to say with the siho-type interpretation?
> >
> > No. But it makes things more rational: the syntax is a more faithful
> > reflection of the meaning, with the useful consequence that logical
> > problems of opacity go away.
>
> Of the meaning you chose. I don't believe there is any "one true meaning"
> for any gismu. Which meaning is a better choice is quite subjective.

There isn't a *preexisting* one true meaning, but words do have one
true meaning. We subjectively choose which meaning should be the one
true one. Of course with natural languages we don't make that choice,
since when we decide the one true meaning of a word in our idiolect
our decision is severely constrained by the need to ensure that the
meaning corresponds as closely as possible to the meaning of the word
in other speakers' idiolects.

> > > > >         do djica la'e lu mi ponse le cukta li'u
> > > > >
> > > Well, you don't want the thought itself either, you want what the
> > > thought expresses, and that is what I understood {la'e} to mean.
> >
> > It is confusing to use "want" as a gloss: it obscures the problem.
> > The x2 of djica should refer to an idea whose realization pleases me
> > and whose nonrealization displeases me. Given this, I think (in a
> > muddled sort of way) that "lahe" is wrong for our purposes, and instead
> > we need either:
> >   (i) "lu broda lihu" means either "the sentence 'broda'" or
> >       "the thought 'broda'", or
>
> I think it means either, but it is the words, not what they express.
> {lu mi klama li'u cu drani} means "'mi klama' is correct". It doesn't
> mean that my going is correct. It matters little whether they are
> thought, spoken or written words. To get what the words express, you
> have to use a {la'e} in front.

Okay. Then plain "lu broda lihu" is what I want then.
"Do djica lu mi cliva lihu" would mean "You want to leave".
[Or some lujvo in "djica"'s stead.]

> >   (ii) We need an analogue of "lahe" that means "the idea of", e.g.
> >        "xahe" in "xahe lu broda lihu", or
>
> I don't really see the difference between "the idea of" and "that which
> is expressed by". Can you be more explicit?

Depending on how cognitive your semantics is, the referent of "lo mlatu"
is either a cat, or a concept of a cat. Whichever you prefer, this is
what the referent of "lahe lu lo mlatu lihu" is. If you think the
referent of "lo mlatu" is a cat, then I wanted the referent
of "xahe lu lo mlatu lihu" to be a concept of a cat. If you think the
referent of "lo mlatu" is a concept of a cat, then I wanted the
referent of "xahe lu lo mlatu lihu" to be a concept of a concept of
a cat.

> >   (iii) We need an analogue of "lu" that marks quoted thoughts, e.g.
> >        "xuhu" in "mi djica xuhu mi viska do lihu"
>
> I don't think it is necessary to say in what form were the words,
> thought, spoken, written, or any other. But again, it is not the words
> that are wanted.

No, I'd be happy with the words, if words can be thought.

----
And