jbocre: zo'e poi: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{jbocre/en}} {{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...")
 
(fixing formatting, removing superfluous line breaks)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{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|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|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<br/>by magic<br/>so it doesn't need to be poi}}
{{Irci|durka42|'''zo'e''' is always correct by magic, 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|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<br/>it's just not very useful for the listener to have a bare '''zo'e''' in every place...}}
{{Irci|durka42|I think zo'e covers both of those, 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<br/>s/changes/limites<br/>(limits)<br/>.oi ckafi}}
{{Irci|mukti|lukys: Yes, it's my impression that '''poi''' limits reference, whereas '''noi''' comments on referents.}}
{{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|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'''<br/>If '''lo broda''' is equivalent to '''zo'e noi broda''', aren't we saying that the reference is independent of the description?<br/>That the description is incidental?}}
{{Irci|mukti|'''zo'e noi broda''' seems to imagine a situation where the referent is pointed to independently of being described as '''broda'''. If '''lo broda''' is equivalent to '''zo'e noi broda''', aren't we saying that the reference is independent of the description? That the description is incidental?}}
{{Irci|durka42|well, the reference is in the speaker's mind}}
{{Irci|durka42|well, the reference is in the speaker's mind}}
{{Irci|mukti|Ok, but is it a typed pointer or a void * ?}}
{{Irci|mukti|Ok, but is it a typed pointer or a void * ?}}
{{Irci|durka42|don't know how to answer that<br/>I think it's typed}}
{{Irci|durka42|don't know how to answer that. 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|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|durka42|that's what people keep going back and forth on}}
Line 18: Line 18:
{{Irci|durka42|the referents}}
{{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|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<br/>but I don't know<br/>if we can't answer this question… perhaps '''zo'e''' is too magical...}}
{{Irci|durka42|I guess I'm saying they're independent then, but I don't know 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|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|durka42|but you can still say things that aren't true...}}
Line 25: Line 25:
{{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|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|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'''.<br/>"What I told you is true, from a certain point of view."}}
{{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'''. "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<br/>perhaps that's the same as saying zo'e takes the UD into account}}
{{Irci|durka42|zo'e has to take the speaker's intentions into account, 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|xalbo|I don't think those are the same. I'd say it probably has to take both into account.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Don't take '''zo'e noi broda''' too literally.<br/>It's not a text replacement, but a referent replacement}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Don't take '''zo'e noi broda''' too literally. It's not a text replacement, but a referent replacement}}
{{Irci|durka42|uaru'e}}
{{Irci|durka42|uaru'e}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|'''zo'e noi broda''' is '''lo broda''' if '''zo'e''' brodas.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|'''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|durka42|but you can actually say '''zo'e noi''' in a sentence}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Sure, and then you need to know what '''zo'e''' refers to.<br/>Or not care.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Sure, and then you need to know what '''zo'e''' refers to. Or not care.}}
{{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|"<fpcalep> '''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|xalbo|"<fpcalep> '''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}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|I understand '''zo'e poi broda''' as '''lo me zo'e je poi'i broda'''.<br/>'''poi''' as a definition for '''lo''' doesn't seem right.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|I understand '''zo'e poi broda''' as '''lo me zo'e je poi'i broda'''. '''poi''' as a definition for '''lo''' doesn't seem right.}}
{{Irci|xalbo|Why not?<br/>Isn't the point of '''lo broda''' essentially that it gives you a referent that broda's?}}
{{Irci|xalbo|Why not? Isn't the point of '''lo broda''' essentially that it gives you a referent that broda's?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|But '''zo'e''' is that referent already.s}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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|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|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|xalbo|'''zo'e''' and '''lo co'e''' seem really, really close to me.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|But do you see '''lo ckafi''' as a restricted referencẻ<br/>?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|But do you see '''lo ckafi''' as a restricted reference?}}
{{Irci|xalbo|Intuitively I think i do.}}
{{Irci|xalbo|Intuitively I think i do.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Part of why it may seem weird is that '''zo'e''' does two different things<br/>It can be "it" or "something"}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Part of why it may seem weird is that '''zo'e''' does two different things. 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|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|durka42|what a ringing endorsement}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Do you start with a bigger reference set and then restrict it to coffee? '''lo ckafi''' goes right to coffee.<br/>'''zo'e poi broda''' takes '''zo'e''' as a start and then restricts to those among it that also satisfy '''broda'''}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Do you start with a bigger reference set and then restrict it to coffee? '''lo ckafi''' goes right to coffee. '''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|durka42|but zo'e is magic, so it changes to be the restricted set as soon as you restrict it?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|'''lo broda''' -> '''zo'e noi broda''' is only true for a '''zo'e''' that refers to brodas}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|'''lo broda''' -> '''zo'e noi broda''' is only true for a '''zo'e''' that refers to brodas}}
Line 54: Line 54:
{{Irci|fpcalep|But that oddness comes from '''zo'e''' doing both unspecified reference and definite reference}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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|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|fpcalep|The equality is only true if '''zo'e''' refers to brodas.<br/>And '''zo'e''' takes its value from context}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|The equality is only true if '''zo'e''' refers to brodas. 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|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|fpcalep|That's a meta-statement about the equivalence.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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|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|fpcalep|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.<br/>only refers to*<br/>'''zo'e poi''' starts with a bigger referent set}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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 only refers to brodas. '''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?<br/>Why not just say "lo broda {{=}}{{=}} zo'e, but that only holds if '''zo'e''' refers to brodas"?}}
{{Irci|xalbo|That seems like a bizarre equivalence. What's the point of the '''noi broda''', then? Why not just say "lo broda {{=}}{{=}} zo'e, but that only holds if '''zo'e''' refers to brodas"?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Exactly.<br/>And '''noi broda''' only comments on the referent.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Exactly. 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.<br/>Why comment on a referent you've already restricted externally?}}
{{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. Why comment on a referent you've already restricted externally?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|Why restrict that referent again if it's already the referent that makes the bridi true?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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|xalbo|Because we're adding part of the bridi that we also want to say is true (that the referent must also '''broda''').}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|We already know that it does.<br/>In the definition of '''lo broda'''<br/>(remember the "don't take it too literally")<br/>That definition starts by knowing the referent of '''zo'e'''<br/>'''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|fpcalep|We already know that it does. In the definition of '''lo broda''' (remember the "don't take it too literally"). That definition starts by knowing the referent of '''zo'e'''. '''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.<br/>I don't understand.<br/>What are the two properties that must be satisfied for '''zo'e poi 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. I don't understand. What are the two properties that must be satisfied for '''zo'e poi broda'''?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|'''me zo'e''' and '''broda'''}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|'''me zo'e''' and '''broda'''}}
{{Irci|xalbo|And '''zo'e noi broda''' only requires '''broda''', not '''me zo'e'''‽<br/>Or am I misinterpreting "(only one property, namely broda)"?}}
{{Irci|xalbo|And '''zo'e noi broda''' only requires '''broda''', not '''me zo'e'''‽ Or am I misinterpreting "(only one property, namely broda)"?}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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'''<br/>One has a logical conjunction imposed on the referent<br/>the other asserts both independently.<br/>This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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'''. One has a logical conjunction imposed on the referent, the other asserts both independently. This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful}}
{{Irci|Ilmen|BPFK:  "ko'a poi broda" {{=}} '''<u>lo</u> 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|Ilmen|BPFK:  "ko'a poi broda" {{=}} '''<u>lo</u> 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|fpcalep|'''zo'e poi broda''' "those things among zo'e that broda"}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|'''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|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|fpcalep|I tried to make it very clear that that last part is *not* part of the definition<br/>it is a comment *about* the definition}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|I tried to make it very clear that that last part is *not* part of the definition; 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'''.<br/>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|xalbo|I don't see the difference between "those things among zo'e that broda" and '''lo broda'''. 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|fpcalep|I do see a difference between "The dogs" and "The things among those things that are dogs" (though the latter reads a bit ambiguous)<br/>Yes. '''noi broda''' adds a separate statement.<br/>It seems your trouble is actually with the step from '''zo'e noi''' to '''lo''', not vice versa<br/>Or maybe you think it doesn't matter}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|I do see a difference between "The dogs" and "The things among those things that are dogs" (though the latter reads a bit ambiguous)<br/>Yes. '''noi broda''' adds a separate statement. It seems your trouble is actually with the step from '''zo'e noi''' to '''lo''', not vice versa. Or maybe you think it doesn't matter}}
{{Irci|xalbo|I'm not sure.}}
{{Irci|xalbo|I'm not sure.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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.<br/>However<br/>in the other direction, it's less true that you can simply replace the strings.<br/>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.<br/>If '''zo'e''' is tea, then '''zo'e noi broda''' won't be '''lo ckafi'''<br/>And that's why you cannot take it as a literal replacement.}}
{{Irci|fpcalep|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. However, in the other direction, it's less true that you can simply replace the strings. 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. If '''zo'e''' is tea, then '''zo'e noi broda''' won't be '''lo ckafi'''. 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.}}
{{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.}}

Revision as of 11:28, 22 May 2015

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 by magic, 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, 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 limits 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. If lo broda is equivalent to zo'e noi broda, aren't we saying that the reference is independent of the description? 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. 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, but I don't know 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. "What I told you is true, from a certain point of view."
durka42 zo'e has to take the speaker's intentions into account, 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.
fpcalep Don't take zo'e noi broda too literally. It's not a text replacement, but a referent replacement
durka42 uaru'e
fpcalep zo'e noi broda is lo broda if zo'e brodas.
durka42 but you can actually say zo'e noi in a sentence
fpcalep Sure, and then you need to know what zo'e refers to. Or not care.
durka42 or, every other week someone invents another experimental cmavo that means zo'e noi [bridi]
xalbo "<fpcalep> 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
fpcalep I understand zo'e poi broda as lo me zo'e je poi'i broda. poi as a definition for lo doesn't seem right.
xalbo Why not? Isn't the point of lo broda essentially that it gives you a referent that broda's?
fpcalep 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.
fpcalep But do you see lo ckafi as a restricted reference?
xalbo Intuitively I think i do.
fpcalep Part of why it may seem weird is that zo'e does two different things. It can be "it" or "something"
Ilmen Saying zo'e = lo co'e is probably not more bad a definition than lo broda = zo'e noi broda
durka42 what a ringing endorsement
fpcalep Do you start with a bigger reference set and then restrict it to coffee? lo ckafi goes right to coffee. 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?
fpcalep 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.
fpcalep Which is why it's not a literal equality
fpcalep 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.
fpcalep The equality is only true if zo'e refers to brodas. 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.
fpcalep 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.
fpcalep 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 only refers to brodas. 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? Why not just say "lo broda == zo'e, but that only holds if zo'e refers to brodas"?
fpcalep Exactly. 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. Why comment on a referent you've already restricted externally?
fpcalep 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).
fpcalep We already know that it does. In the definition of lo broda (remember the "don't take it too literally"). That definition starts by knowing the referent of zo'e. 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. I don't understand. What are the two properties that must be satisfied for zo'e poi broda?
fpcalep me zo'e and broda
xalbo And zo'e noi broda only requires broda, not me zo'e‽ Or am I misinterpreting "(only one property, namely broda)"?
fpcalep 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. One has a logical conjunction imposed on the referent, the other asserts both independently. This second part is hard to explain but the quantifier example is hopefully helpful
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?
fpcalep 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"
fpcalep I tried to make it very clear that that last part is *not* part of the definition; 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. 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).
fpcalep I do see a difference between "The dogs" and "The things among those things that are dogs" (though the latter reads a bit ambiguous)
Yes. noi broda adds a separate statement. It seems your trouble is actually with the step from zo'e noi to lo, not vice versa. Or maybe you think it doesn't matter
xalbo I'm not sure.
fpcalep 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. However, in the other direction, it's less true that you can simply replace the strings. 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. If zo'e is tea, then zo'e noi broda won't be lo ckafi. 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.