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

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (terjo'e cikre)
(rebdirekte fi lo melmau pe'i versiio)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user 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 {{jvs|poi}} mean something that is essential for the identity, whereas {{jvs|noi}} is some incidental detail?}}
{{irci|durka42|'''zo'e''' is always correct<br/>by magic<br/>so it doesn't need to be '''poi'''}}
{{irci|mukti|If I say {{vlapoi|lo|botpi}}, I'm referring to something contextually sensitive. That's the {{jvs|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 {{jvs|botpi}}. That restriction seems to me more like a {{jvs|poi}} than a {{jvs|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 {{jvs|zo'e}} in every place...}}
{{irci|mukti|lukys: Yes, it's my impression that {{jvs|poi}} limits reference, whereas {{jvs|noi}} comments on referents}}
{{irci|xalbo|I've never understood the problem with {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi}} either. It still seems right to me. {{jvs|zo'e}} magically changes reference to find the contextually relevant thing, but {{vlapoi|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 {{vlapoi|zo'e|brode}} also satisfies {{jvs|broda}}, where {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda|cu|brode}} seems, to me, to be saying that the thing we're talking about that satisfies {{jvs|broda}} satisfies {{jvs|brode}}.}}
{{irci|mukti|{{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} seems to imagine a situation where the referent is pointed to independently of being described as {{jvs|broda}}.}}
{{irci|mukti|If {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} is equivalent to {{vlapoi|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 {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} is {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}}, and the reference is *not* said to independent of the description, then {{jvs|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 {{jvs|zo'e}} is too magical...}}
{{irci|xalbo|Well, I think the point is that {{jvs|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 {{vlapoi|mi|dunli|lo|merja'a}}, intending to lie, but {{jvs|zo'e}} undermines me by magically resolving to {{vlapoi|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 {{vlapoi|mi|merja'a}}|in the first place. Or at the very least use {{jvs|mintu}} or {{jvs|du}}.}}
{{irci|durka42|well yes}}
{{irci|xalbo|But you make a good point. If someone asks {{vlapoi|mo|fa|la|tepcrida}} ("What happened to the dementor?"), then {{vlapoi|se|citka|mi}} is a lie, even if {{vlapoi|se|citka|mi}} would otherwise be a true statement (I did eat something). Though maybe that has more to do with place-filling and {{jvs|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 {{vlapoi|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|{{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} is {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} if {{jvs|zo'e}} brodas.}}
{{irci|durka42|but you can actually say {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi}} in a sentence}}
{{irci|selpa'i|Sure, and then you need to know what {{jvs|zo'e}} refers to.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|Or not care.}}
{{irci|durka42|or, every other week someone invents another experimental cmavo that means {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi}} '''[bridi]'''.}}
{{irci|xalbo|"<selpa'i> {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} is {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} if {{jvs|zo'e}} brodas." -- That seems like a really complicated way of saying that {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} is/does the same thing as/mintu {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}}.}}
{{irci|durka42|{{vlapoi|xo'e|da|poi|broda}} zo'onairu'e}}
{{irci|selpa'i|I understand {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}} as {{vlapoi|lo|me|zo'e|je|poi'i|broda}}.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|{{jvs|poi}} as a definition for {{jvs|lo}} doesn't seem right.}}
{{irci|xalbo|Why not?}}
{{irci|xalbo|Isn't the point of {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} essentially that it gives you a referent that broda's?}}
{{irci|selpa'i|But {{jvs|zo'e}} is that referent already.s}}
{{irci|xalbo|I don't see {{vlapoi|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|{{jvs|zo'e}} and {{vlapoi|lo|co'e}} seem really, really close to me.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|But do you see {{vlapoi|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 {{jvs|zo'e}} does two different things}}
{{irci|selpa'i|It can be "it" or "something"}}
{{irci|Ilmen|Saying {{jvs|zo'e}} equals {{vlapoi|lo|co'e}} is probably not more bad a definition than {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} equals {{vlapoi|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? {{vlapoi|lo|ckafi}} goes right to coffee.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|{{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}} takes {{jvs|zo'e}} as a start and then restricts to those among it that also satisfy {{jvs|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|{{vlapoi|lo|broda}} -> {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} is only true for a {{jvs|zo'e}} that refers to brodas}}
{{irci|xalbo|And {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} takes {{jvs|zo'e}} as a start, and then says that it already satisfies {{jvs|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 {{jvs|zo'e}} doing both unspecified reference and definite reference}}
{{irci|xalbo|But the way you say "and this is only true for a {{jvs|zo'e}} that satisfies {{jvs|broda}}" is to use {{jvs|poi}}. That's pretty much exactly what {{jvs|poi}} does.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|The equality is only true if {{jvs|zo'e}} refers to brodas.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|And {{jvs|zo'e}} takes its value from context}}
{{irci|xalbo|It just seems like you keep saying things that sound, to me, entirely consistent with {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}}, while rejecting "{{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}}". {{jvs|zo'e}}, but only if it satisfies {{jvs|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 {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda|cu|brode}}, I would expect to find some {{jvs|zo'e}} that satisfies both. If I saw {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda|cu|brode}}, I would expect that the very same {{jvs|zo'e}} I'd get if I just saw {{vlapoi|zo'e|brode}} would also happen to satisfy {{jvs|broda}}. Which, in fact, is a whole lot closer to what I'd expect for {{vlapoi|lo|brode|cu|broda}}.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|The equivalence "lo broda" and "zo'e noi broda" holds only when {{jvs|zo'e}} refers to brodas. That's different from saying that {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} means a zo'e that only refers to brodas.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|{{vlapoi|zo'e|poi}} starts with a bigger referent set}}
{{irci|xalbo|That seems like a bizarre equivalence. What's the point of the {{vlapoi|noi|broda}}, then?}}
{{irci|xalbo|Why not just say "lo broda" equals "zo'e", but that only holds if {{jvs|zo'e}} refers to brodas"?}}
{{irci|selpa'i|Exactly.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|And {{vlapoi|noi|broda}} only comments on the referent.}}
{{irci|xalbo|But {{vlapoi|poi|broda}} adds the bit about requiring it to satisfy {{jvs|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 {{jvs|broda}}).}}
{{irci|selpa'i|We already know that it does.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|In the definition of {{vlapoi|lo|broda}}.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|(remember the "don't take it too literally")}}
{{irci|selpa'i|That definition starts by knowing the referent of {{jvs|zo'e}}.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|{{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}} is like saying "The contextually obvious things that also broda (two properties need to be satisfied)", while {{vlapoi|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 {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} to mean {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}}, we'd need a lot less of the "don't take this too literally", "this only applies if it already {{jvs|broda}}", and other provisos.}}
{{irci|xalbo|I don't understand.}}
{{irci|xalbo|What are the two properties that must be satisfied for {{vlapoi|zo'e|poi|broda}}?}}
{{irci|selpa'i|{{vlapoi|me|zo'e}} and {{jvs|broda}}.}}
{{irci|xalbo|And {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} only requires {{jvs|broda}}, not {{vlapoi|me|zo'e}}?}}
{{irci|xalbo|Or am I misinterpreting "(only one property, namely broda)"?}}
{{irci|selpa'i|The referent in the {{jvs|poi}} case includes only those individuals that satisfy both properties, whereas in the {{jvs|noi}} case the referent is {{jvs|zo'e}}, and it's (incidentally, that is, it has no effect on a quantifier) broda. This is quite similar to the difference between {{vlapoi|ro|ko'a|poi}} and {{vlapoi|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" 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|{{vlapoi|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 {{jvs|broda}}? That seems to be a fundamental thing to what {{vlapoi|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 {{jvs|zo'e}} satisfies {{jvs|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 {{vlapoi|lo|broda}}.}}
{{irci|xalbo|To my mind, {{vlapoi|noi|broda}} adds completely incidental information. That is, we could replace {{vlapoi|noi|broda}} with {{vlapoi|goi|ko'a}}, and then add a separate sentence {{vlapoi|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. {{vlapoi|noi|broda}} adds a separate statement.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|It seems your trouble is actually with the step from {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi}} to {{jvs|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 {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} to {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} in the gadri definition because the definition can choose that this {{jvs|zo'e}} refers to {{vlapoi|lo|broda}}. Thus you can go from any {{vlapoi|lo|brodi}} to {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|brodi}} as long as you have  a {{jvs|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 {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} to {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} requires the {{jvs|zo'e}} to refer to {{vlapoi|lo|broda}}. But not every {{jvs|zo'e}} refers to {{vlapoi|lo|broda}}, it takes a special context.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|If {{jvs|zo'e}} is tea, then {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} won't be {{vlapoi|lo|ckafi}}.}}
{{irci|selpa'i|And that's why you cannot take it as a literal replacement.}}
{{irci|xalbo|Then that makes using {{vlapoi|zo'e|noi|broda}} to explain {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} less than worthless. You have to already have {{vlapoi|lo|broda}} as context for {{jvs|zo'e}}, the {{vlapoi|noi|broda}} adds literally nothing, and it only works when it already works.}}

Latest revision as of 15:38, 24 May 2015

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://mw-live.lojban.org/index.php?title=jbocre:_On_zo%27e_noi_in_the_gadri_definition&oldid=114531"