jbocre: On zo'e noi in the gadri definition: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "A conversation on the #lojban IRC channel about the relationship between '''lo''' and '''zo'e noi'''. ==The conversation== {{irci|mukti|I'm reminded of a related question I...") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
{{irci|durka42|or, every other week someone invents another experimental cmavo that means {zo'e noi [bridi]}.}} | {{irci|durka42|or, every other week someone invents another experimental cmavo that means {zo'e noi [bridi]}.}} | ||
{{irci|@xalbo|" | {{irci|@xalbo|"<selpa'i> {zo'e noi broda} is {lo broda} if {zo'e} brodas." -- That seems like a really complicated way of saying that {lo broda} is/does the same thing as/mintu {zo'e poi broda}.}} | ||
{{irci|durka42|{xo'e da poi broda} zo'onairu'e}} | {{irci|durka42|{xo'e da poi broda} zo'onairu'e}} | ||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
{{irci|selpa'i|It can be "it" or "something"}} | {{irci|selpa'i|It can be "it" or "something"}} | ||
{{irci|Ilmen|Saying {zo'e | {{irci|Ilmen|Saying {zo'e} equals {lo co'e} is probably not more bad a definition than {lo broda} equals {zo'e noi broda}.}} | ||
{{irci|durka42|what a ringing endorsement}} | {{irci|durka42|what a ringing endorsement}} | ||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
{{irci|durka42|but zo'e is magic, so it changes to be the restricted set as soon as you restrict it?}} | {{irci|durka42|but zo'e is magic, so it changes to be the restricted set as soon as you restrict it?}} | ||
{{irci|selpa'i|{lo broda} - | {{irci|selpa'i|{lo broda} -> {zo'e noi broda} is only true for a {zo'e} that refers to brodas}} | ||
{{irci|@xalbo|And {zo'e noi broda] takes {zo'e} as a start, and then says that it already satisfies {broda}. Which seems far odder to me.}} | {{irci|@xalbo|And {zo'e noi broda] takes {zo'e} as a start, and then says that it already satisfies {broda}. Which seems far odder to me.}} | ||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
{{irci|@xalbo|To me, the difference between restrictive and incidental is that I would expect the former to change the referent. If I saw {zo'e poi broda cu brode}, I would expect to find some {zo'e} that satisfies both. If I saw {zo'e noi broda cu brode}, I would expect that the very same {zo'e} I'd get if I just saw {zo'e brode} would also happen to satisfy {broda}. Which, in fact, is a whole lot closer to what I'd expect for {lo brode cu broda}.}} | {{irci|@xalbo|To me, the difference between restrictive and incidental is that I would expect the former to change the referent. If I saw {zo'e poi broda cu brode}, I would expect to find some {zo'e} that satisfies both. If I saw {zo'e noi broda cu brode}, I would expect that the very same {zo'e} I'd get if I just saw {zo'e brode} would also happen to satisfy {broda}. Which, in fact, is a whole lot closer to what I'd expect for {lo brode cu broda}.}} | ||
{{irci|selpa'i|The equivalence "lo broda | {{irci|selpa'i|The equivalence "lo broda" and "zo'e noi broda" holds only when {zo'e} refers to brodas. That's different from saying that {lo broda} means a zo'e that only refers to brodas.}} | ||
{{irci|selpa'i|{zo'e poi} starts with a bigger referent set}} | {{irci|selpa'i|{zo'e poi} starts with a bigger referent set}} | ||
Line 166: | Line 165: | ||
{{irci|@xalbo|That seems like a bizarre equivalence. What's the point of the {noi broda}, then?}} | {{irci|@xalbo|That seems like a bizarre equivalence. What's the point of the {noi broda}, then?}} | ||
{{irci|@xalbo|Why not just say "lo broda | {{irci|@xalbo|Why not just say "lo broda" equals "zo'e", but that only holds if {zo'e} refers to brodas"?}} | ||
{{irci|selpa'i|Exactly.}} | {{irci|selpa'i|Exactly.}} | ||
Line 210: | Line 209: | ||
{{irci|selpa'i|This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful}} | {{irci|selpa'i|This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful}} | ||
{{irci|Ilmen|BPFK: "ko'a poi broda" | {{irci|Ilmen|BPFK: "ko'a poi broda" equals "*lo* me ko'a je broda" -- According to this definition, defining "lo" from "zo'e poi" would lead to a circular definition, wouldn't it?}} | ||
{{irci|selpa'i|{zo'e poi broda} "those things among zo'e that broda"}} | {{irci|selpa'i|{zo'e poi broda} "those things among zo'e that broda"}} |
Revision as of 17:35, 7 January 2015
A conversation on the #lojban IRC channel about the relationship between lo and zo'e noi.
The conversation
mukti | I'm reminded of a related question I had when I first encountered the {zo'e noi broda} formula, which is to say, why {noi broda} rather than {poi broda}? |
lukys | Doesn't {poi} mean something that is essential for the identity, whereas {noi} is some incidental detail? |
durka42 | zo'e is always correct}. |
durka42 | by magic |
durka42 | so it doesn't need to be poi |
mukti | If I say {lo botpi}, I'm referring to something contextually sensitive. That's the {zo'e} part, right? But the referent is restricted (or so it seems to me) among all the contextually available referents in so far as it satisfies {botpi}. That restriction seems to me more like a {poi} than a {noi}. Someone set me straight. |
durka42 | I think zo'e covers both of those |
durka42 | it's just not very useful for the listener to have a bare {zo'e} in every place... |
mukti | lukys: Yes, it's my impression that {poi} changes reference, whereas {noi} comments on referents |
mukti | s/changes/limites |
mukti | (limits) |
mukti | .oi ckafi |
@xalbo | I've never understood the problem with {zo'e poi} either. It still seems right to me. {zo'e} magically changes reference to find the contextually relevant thing, but {zo'e noi broda cu brode} seems, to me, to be saying that the thing we'd expect to be talking about if we saw {zo'e brode} also satisfies {broda}, where {zo'e poi broda cu brode} seems, to me, to be saying that the thing we're talking about that satisfies {broda} satisfies {brode}. |
mukti | {zo'e noi broda} seems to imagine a situation where the referent is pointed to independently of being described as {broda}. |
mukti | If {lo broda} is equivalent to {zo'e noi broda}, aren't we saying that the reference is independent of the description? |
mukti | That the description is incidental? |
durka42 | well, the reference is in the speaker's mind |
mukti | Ok, but is it a typed pointer or a void * ? |
durka42 | don't know how to answer that |
durka42 | I think it's typed |
mukti | What I'm trying to get at is whether or not the reference can be said to depend on the description. |
durka42 | that's what people keep going back and forth on |
mukti | If the reference does not depend on the description, then it is similar to a void * in C. It's the address of data which is unspecified in structure. |
durka42 | but the data's there, either way |
mukti | Well, it depends what you mean by "the data". :) |
durka42 | the referents |
mukti | If {lo broda} is {zo'e noi broda}, and the reference is *not* said to independent of the description, then {zo'e} must have some property of suspending reference until relative clauses are considered. Or so it seems to me. |
durka42 | I guess I'm saying they're independent then |
durka42 | but I don't know |
durka42 | if we can't answer this question… perhaps {zo'e} is too magical... |
@xalbo | Well, I think the point is that {zo'e} is nearly limitlessly magical. It does whatever it needs to, given the entire context (including relative clauses, and everything else possible) to make what you say true. |
durka42 | but you can still say things that aren't true... |
@xalbo | I guess, then, to make it mean what you mean it to mean...I'm not sure. |
durka42 | if I say {mi dunli lo merja'a}, intending to lie, but {zo'e} undermines me by magically resolving to {lo ka remna kei po'o}, that's kind of annoying |
@xalbo | Being xalbo, I'd say that's why you wanted to say {mi merja'a} in the first place. Or at the very least use {mintu} or {du}. |
durka42 | well yes |
@xalbo | But you make a good point. If someone asks {mo fa la tepcrida} ("What happened to the dementor?"), then {se citka mi} is a lie, even if {se citka mi} would otherwise be a true statement (I did eat something). Though maybe that has more to do with place-filling and {mo}. |
@xalbo | "What I told you is true, from a certain point of view." |
durka42 | zo'e has to take the speaker's intentions into account |
durka42 | perhaps that's the same as saying zo'e takes the UD into account |
@xalbo | I don't think those are the same. I'd say it probably has to take both into account. |
selpa'i | Don't take {zo'e noi broda} too literally. |
selpa'i | It's not a text replacement, but a referent replacement |
durka42 | uaru'e |
selpa'i | {zo'e noi broda} is {lo broda} if {zo'e} brodas. |
durka42 | but you can actually say {zo'e noi} in a sentence |
selpa'i | Sure, and then you need to know what {zo'e} refers to. |
selpa'i | Or not care. |
durka42 | or, every other week someone invents another experimental cmavo that means {zo'e noi [bridi]}. |
@xalbo | "<selpa'i> {zo'e noi broda} is {lo broda} if {zo'e} brodas." -- That seems like a really complicated way of saying that {lo broda} is/does the same thing as/mintu {zo'e poi broda}. |
durka42 | {xo'e da poi broda} zo'onairu'e |
selpa'i | I understand {zo'e poi broda} as {lo me zo'e je poi'i broda}. |
selpa'i | {poi} as a definition for {lo} doesn't seem right. |
@xalbo | Why not? |
@xalbo | Isn't the point of {lo broda} essentially that it gives you a referent that broda's? |
selpa'i | But {zo'e} is that referent already.s |
@xalbo | I don't see {mi pinxe lo ckafi} as saying "I'm drinking something. BTW, it turns out it's coffee. Who knew?" |
Ilmen | Maybe defining zo'e from lo would be wiser than the other way round |
@xalbo | {zo'e} and {lo co'e} seem really, really close to me. |
selpa'i | But do you see {lo ckafi} as a restricted reference? |
@xalbo | Intuitively I think i do. |
selpa'i | Part of why it may seem weird is that {zo'e} does two different things |
selpa'i | It can be "it" or "something" |
Ilmen | Saying {zo'e} equals {lo co'e} is probably not more bad a definition than {lo broda} equals {zo'e noi broda}. |
durka42 | what a ringing endorsement |
selpa'i | Do you start with a bigger reference set and then restrict it to coffee? {lo ckafi} goes right to coffee. |
selpa'i | {zo'e poi broda} takes {zo'e} as a start and then restricts to those among it that also satisfy {broda}. |
durka42 | but zo'e is magic, so it changes to be the restricted set as soon as you restrict it? |
selpa'i | {lo broda} -> {zo'e noi broda} is only true for a {zo'e} that refers to brodas |
@xalbo | And {zo'e noi broda] takes {zo'e} as a start, and then says that it already satisfies {broda}. Which seems far odder to me. |
selpa'i | Which is why it's not a literal equality |
selpa'i | But that oddness comes from {zo'e} doing both unspecified reference and definite reference |
@xalbo | But the way you say "and this is only true for a {zo'e} that satisfies {broda}" is to use {poi}. That's pretty much exactly what {poi} does. |
selpa'i | The equality is only true if {zo'e} refers to brodas. |
selpa'i | And {zo'e} takes its value from context |
@xalbo | It just seems like you keep saying things that sound, to me, entirely consistent with {zo'e poi broda}, while rejecting "{zo'e poi broda}". {zo'e}, but only if it satisfies {broda}. |
selpa'i | That's a meta-statement about the equivalence. |
@xalbo | To me, the difference between restrictive and incidental is that I would expect the former to change the referent. If I saw {zo'e poi broda cu brode}, I would expect to find some {zo'e} that satisfies both. If I saw {zo'e noi broda cu brode}, I would expect that the very same {zo'e} I'd get if I just saw {zo'e brode} would also happen to satisfy {broda}. Which, in fact, is a whole lot closer to what I'd expect for {lo brode cu broda}. |
selpa'i | The equivalence "lo broda" and "zo'e noi broda" holds only when {zo'e} refers to brodas. That's different from saying that {lo broda} means a zo'e that only refers to brodas. |
selpa'i | {zo'e poi} starts with a bigger referent set |
@xalbo | That seems like a bizarre equivalence. What's the point of the {noi broda}, then? |
@xalbo | Why not just say "lo broda" equals "zo'e", but that only holds if {zo'e} refers to brodas"? |
selpa'i | Exactly. |
selpa'i | And {noi broda} only comments on the referent. |
@xalbo | But {poi broda} adds the bit about requiring it to satisfy {broda}, but takes it out of the metalanguage English qualification and into the actual equivalence. |
@xalbo | Why comment on a referent you've already restricted externally? |
selpa'i | Why restrict that referent again if it's already the referent that makes the bridi true? |
@xalbo | Because we're adding part of the bridi that we also want to say is true (that the referent must also {broda}). |
selpa'i | We already know that it does. |
selpa'i | In the definition of {lo broda}. |
selpa'i | (remember the "don't take it too literally") |
selpa'i | That definition starts by knowing the referent of {zo'e}. |
selpa'i | {zo'e poi broda} is like saying "The contextually obvious things that also broda (two properties need to be satisfied)", while {zo'e noi broda} is more like saying "Those contextually obvious things, and those things broda" (only one property, namely broda) |
@xalbo | I'm saying that if we define {lo broda} to mean {zo'e poi broda}, we'd need a lot less of the "don't take this too literally", "this only applies if it already {broda}", and other provisos. |
@xalbo | I don't understand. |
@xalbo | What are the two properties that must be satisfied for {zo'e poi broda}? |
selpa'i | {me zo'e} and {broda}. |
@xalbo | And {zo'e noi broda} only requires {broda}, not {me zo'e}‽ |
@xalbo | Or am I misinterpreting "(only one property, namely broda)"? |
selpa'i | The referent in the {poi} case includes only those individuals that satisfy both properties, whereas in the {noi} case the referent is {zo'e}, and it's (incidentally, that is, it has no effect on a quantifier) broda. This is quite similar to the difference between {ro ko'a poi} and {ro ko'a noi}. |
selpa'i | One has a logical conjunction imposed on the referent |
selpa'i | the other asserts both independently. |
selpa'i | This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful |
Ilmen | BPFK: "ko'a poi broda" equals "*lo* me ko'a je broda" -- According to this definition, defining "lo" from "zo'e poi" would lead to a circular definition, wouldn't it? |
selpa'i | {zo'e poi broda} "those things among zo'e that broda" |
@xalbo | I still don't understand. What's wrong with restricting our referents to only those that {broda}? That seems to be a fundamental thing to what {lo broda} does, and it seems that even you are doing that, you're just doing it in English separately with "it's only true if {zo'e} satisfies {broda}" |
selpa'i | I tried to make it very clear that that last part is *not* part of the definition |
selpa'i | it is a comment *about* the definition |
@xalbo | I don't see the difference between "those things among zo'e that broda" and {lo broda}. |
@xalbo | To my mind, {noi broda} adds completely incidental information. That is, we could replace {noi broda] with {goi ko'a}, and then add a separate sentence {ko'a broda}, and get the same result (scope issues and grammar issues notwithstanding). |
selpa'i | I do see a difference between "The dogs" and "The things among those things that are dogs" (though the latter reads a bit ambiguous) |
selpa'i | Yes. {noi broda} adds a separate statement. |
selpa'i | It seems your trouble is actually with the step from {zo'e noi} to {lo}, not vice versa |
selpa'i | Or maybe you think it doesn't matter |
@xalbo | I'm not sure. |
selpa'i | You can go from {lo broda} to {zo'e noi broda} in the gadri definition because the definition can choose that this {zo'e} refers to {lo broda}. Thus you can go from any {lo brodi} to {zo'e noi brodi} as long as you have a {zo'e} in mind that already refers to exactly what you want. |
selpa'i | However |
selpa'i | in the other direction, it's less true that you can simply replace the strings. |
selpa'i | Going from {zo'e noi broda} to {lo broda} requires the {zo'e} to refer to {lo broda}. But not every {zo'e} refers to {lo broda}, it takes a special context. |
selpa'i | If {zo'e} is tea, then {zo'e noi broda} won't be {lo ckafi}. |
selpa'i | And that's why you cannot take it as a literal replacement. |
@xalbo | Then that makes using {zo'e noi broda} to explain {lo broda} less than worthless. You have to already have {lo broda} as context for {zo'e}, the {noi broda} adds literally nothing, and it only works when it already works. |