jbocre: On zo'e noi in the gadri definition: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
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...")
 
(rebdirekte fi lo melmau pe'i versiio)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
A conversation on the #lojban IRC channel about the relationship between '''lo''' and '''zo'e noi'''.
#redirect [[jbocre: zo'e poi]]
 
==The conversation==
 
{{irci|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}?}}
{{irci|lukys|Doesn't {poi} mean something that is essential for the identity, whereas {noi} is some incidental detail?}}
 
{{irci|durka42|zo'e is always correct}.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|by magic}}
 
{{irci|durka42|so it doesn't need to be poi}}
 
{{irci|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.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|I think zo'e covers both of those}}
 
{{irci|durka42|it's just not very useful for the listener to have a bare {zo'e} in every place...}}
 
{{irci|mukti|lukys: Yes, it's my impression that {poi} changes reference, whereas {noi} comments on referents}}
 
{{irci|mukti|s/changes/limites}}
 
{{irci|mukti|(limits)}}
 
{{irci|mukti|.oi ckafi}}
 
{{irci|@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}.}}
 
{{irci|mukti|{zo'e noi broda} seems to imagine a situation where the referent is pointed to independently of being described as {broda}.}}
 
{{irci|mukti|If {lo broda} is equivalent to {zo'e noi broda}, aren't we saying that the reference is independent of the description?}}
 
{{irci|mukti|That the description is incidental?}}
 
{{irci|durka42|well, the reference is in the speaker's mind}}
 
{{irci|mukti|Ok, but is it a typed pointer or a void * ?}}
 
{{irci|durka42|don't know how to answer that}}
 
{{irci|durka42|I think it's typed}}
 
{{irci|mukti|What I'm trying to get at is whether or not the reference can be said to depend on the description.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|that's what people keep going back and forth on}}
 
{{irci|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.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|but the data's there, either way}}
 
{{irci|mukti|Well, it depends what you mean by "the data". :)}}
 
{{irci|durka42|the referents}}
 
{{irci|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.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|I guess I'm saying they're independent then}}
 
{{irci|durka42|but I don't know}}
 
{{irci|durka42|if we can't answer this question… perhaps {zo'e} is too magical...}}
 
{{irci|@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.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|but you can still say things that aren't true...}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|I guess, then, to make it mean what you mean it to mean...I'm not sure.}}
 
{{irci|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}}
 
{{irci|@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}.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|well yes}}
 
{{irci|@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}.}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|"What I told you is true, from a certain point of view."}}
 
{{irci|durka42|zo'e has to take the speaker's intentions into account}}
 
{{irci|durka42|perhaps that's the same as saying zo'e takes the UD into account}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|I don't think those are the same. I'd say it probably has to take both into account.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Don't take {zo'e noi broda} too literally.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|It's not a text replacement, but a referent replacement}}
 
{{irci|durka42|uaru'e}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|{zo'e noi broda} is {lo broda} if {zo'e} brodas.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|but you can actually say {zo'e noi} in a sentence}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Sure, and then you need to know what {zo'e} refers to.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Or not care.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|or, every other week someone invents another experimental cmavo that means {zo'e noi [bridi]}.}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|"{{irci|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|selpa'i|I understand {zo'e poi broda} as {lo me zo'e je poi'i broda}.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|{poi} as a definition for {lo} doesn't seem right.}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|Why not?}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|Isn't the point of {lo broda} essentially that it gives you a referent that broda's?}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|But {zo'e} is that referent already.s}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|I don't see {mi pinxe lo ckafi} as saying "I'm drinking something. BTW, it turns out it's coffee. Who knew?"}}
 
{{irci|Ilmen|Maybe defining zo'e from lo would be wiser than the other way round}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|{zo'e} and {lo co'e} seem really, really close to me.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|But do you see {lo ckafi} as a restricted reference?}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|Intuitively I think i do.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Part of why it may seem weird is that {zo'e} does two different things}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|It can be "it" or "something"}}
 
{{irci|Ilmen|Saying {zo'e = lo co'e} is probably not more bad a definition than {lo broda = zo'e noi broda}.}}
 
{{irci|durka42|what a ringing endorsement}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Do you start with a bigger reference set and then restrict it to coffee? {lo ckafi} goes right to coffee.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|{zo'e poi broda} takes {zo'e} as a start and then restricts to those among it that also satisfy {broda}.}}
 
{{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} -|{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|selpa'i|Which is why it's not a literal equality}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|But that oddness comes from {zo'e} doing both unspecified reference and definite reference}}
 
{{irci|@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.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|The equality is only true if {zo'e} refers to brodas.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|And {zo'e} takes its value from context}}
 
{{irci|@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}.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|That's a meta-statement about the equivalence.}}
 
{{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 == 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 refers to brodas.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|only refers to*}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|{zo'e poi} starts with a bigger referent set}}
 
{{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 == zo'e, but that only holds if {zo'e} refers to brodas"?}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Exactly.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|And {noi broda} only comments on the referent.}}
 
{{irci|@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.}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|Why comment on a referent you've already restricted externally?}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Why restrict that referent again if it's already the referent that makes the bridi true?}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|Because we're adding part of the bridi that we also want to say is true (that the referent must also {broda}).}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|We already know that it does.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|In the definition of {lo broda}.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|(remember the "don't take it too literally")}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|That definition starts by knowing the referent of {zo'e}.}}
 
{{irci|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)}}
 
{{irci|@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.}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|I don't understand.}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|What are the two properties that must be satisfied for {zo'e poi broda}?}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|{me zo'e} and {broda}.}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|And {zo'e noi broda} only requires {broda}, not {me zo'e}‽}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|Or am I misinterpreting "(only one property, namely broda)"?}}
 
{{irci|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}.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|One has a logical conjunction imposed on the referent}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|the other asserts both independently.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful}}
 
{{irci|Ilmen|BPFK:  "ko'a poi broda" = "*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|@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}"}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|I tried to make it very clear that that last part is *not* part of the definition}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|it is a comment *about* the definition}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|I don't see the difference between "those things among zo'e that broda" and {lo broda}.}}
 
{{irci|@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).}}
 
{{irci|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)}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Yes. {noi broda} adds a separate statement.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|It seems your trouble is actually with the step from {zo'e noi} to {lo}, not vice versa}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|Or maybe you think it doesn't matter}}
 
{{irci|@xalbo|I'm not sure.}}
 
{{irci|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.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|However}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|in the other direction, it's less true that you can simply replace the strings.}}
 
{{irci|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.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|If {zo'e} is tea, then {zo'e noi broda} won't be {lo ckafi}.}}
 
{{irci|selpa'i|And that's why you cannot take it as a literal replacement.}}
 
{{irci|@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.}}

Latest revision as of 15:38, 24 May 2015

Redirect to: