Re: solutions to sumti opacity

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> 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.

Ok, you accepted that vajni (important) can take both events and objects.
Define djica based on se vajni, where the x3 is something like
"to satisfy some urge of x1/give pleasure to x1". Maybe the definition
can be improved using other brivla that also accept objects and events.

> > 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.

And what is the difference between "it is important to read this book"
and "this book is important as a reading material"? Isn't there a similar
distinction?

> 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.

I disagree that words have one true meaning even in one's own idiolect.
Their meaning is blurred in a more or less wide range, and depending
on context, one area of that range is focused on.

I agree that for Lojban, at least when defining it, what range is
covered by the word should be made as clear as possible, but I disagree
that giving one sharp true meaning is possible even in principle.

I also agree that it is possible to distinguish between the object
and event cases, but if it is done, I think it should be done
consistently, and I don't find that in the gismu as they are defined now.

> > >   (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.
>
> 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.]

No. It means "you want 'mi cliva'", where 'mi cliva' is an object.
If you don't accept objects as the x2 of djica, then it doesn't make
much sense. If you do, then what you want is that sentence, maybe
when editing a manuscript, you decide that you want 'mi cliva' and not
'mi klama'.

> > >   (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.

I'm confused. lu lo mlatu li'u are the words "lo mlatu". The referent is
not a cat nor the concept of a cat, but the word "lo" followed by the
word "mlatu".

{la'e lu lo mlatu li'u} has as referent that which is expressed by the
words "lo mlatu", so a cat.

In {la'e lu le mlatu li'u} the {le} picks up the in-mindedness of
whoever is being cited by the speaker, because it is within quotation
marks.

> ----
> And

Jorge