Kind: Difference between revisions

Toaq has a quantifier, {{t|baq}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.

For example, {{t|baq tủzy}} means "soup" (or "soup-kind", or "soup in general") rather than {{t|sa tủzy}} "some soup" or {{t|tu tủzy}} "all soup".

* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists S\colon \text{Soup}(S)\right] \text{WillMake}(\text{I}, S)</math>. You aren't saying of some certain instance ''S'' of soup that you'll make it. Instead, the Toaq way of looking at this meaning of "make" is that we are "manifesting a kind"<ref name=manifesting-a-kind />. So we say {{t|bảı jí baq tủzy}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t|sa tủzy}}.

So, a language appears to need a way to make claims about kinds without quantifying over their individuals. One solution is to define predicates like "{{x}} makes something satisfying property {{x}}" and "The kind satisfying property {{x}} is extinct", and then fill them with {{t|tûzy ja}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t|lıbaı}}, or Lojban <code>jaukpa</code>.) But then we are really just tucking away the grammatical concept of kinds in those English definitions. Moreover, it is unnaturally indirect for "X makes Y" to be a <code>c 1</code> word when it very much feels like we are talking about ''things'' and not properties.

When we fill an argument place with a {{t|baq}}-term, the logical meaning of the resulting claim depends on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar)#Carlson_classes '''Carlson class'''] of the predicate with regards to that argument place.

# '''Kind-level''' predicates, such as "{{x}} are extinct" and "{{x}} are widespread", just make a direct claim ''about'' the kind, rather than any individuals of it. They are usually nonsensical when filled with {{t|sa}} or {{t|tu}} terms.

# '''Individual-level''' predicates are true of their argument "no matter when": descriptions not tied to a timeline, like "{{x}} is/are intelligent". A {{t|baq}} argument to such a predicate is interpreted as a general (but maybe not {{t|tu}}-universal?) claim over the individuals of the kind: "cats are intelligent", i.e. (pretty much?) any cat is intelligent.

# '''Stage-level''' predicates are true only of their argument in their current temporal stage. A {{t|baq}} argument to such a predicate is reduced to its {{t|sa}} equivalent: "cats are playing" means "some cats are playing".

(These classes originated in linguistics to describe the apparent variety in meanings an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" can take on in different sentences. So in a sense, an easy way to think about {{t|baq kảto}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)

 

 

{{t|baq}} does not mean "the typical X" (and never has).<ref name="not-typical" /> Typicality is orthogonal to {{t|baq}}:<ref name="orthogonal" /> you can call individual three-leaf clovers "typical", or say that {{t|baq}} clover rarely has four leaves.