jbocre: On zo'e noi in the gadri definition

From Lojban
Revision as of 17:27, 7 January 2015 by Selpahi (talk | contribs) (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...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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]}.

{{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}.
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 {{{2}}}
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} -
@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 {{{2}}}
selpa'i only refers to*
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 {{{2}}}
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 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.