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
|
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
|
@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
|
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". :)
|
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
|
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}.
|
@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
|
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.
|
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
|
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"
|
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?
|
@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
|
{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?
|
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
|
What are the two properties that must be satisfied for {zo'e poi 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
|
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
|
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.
|