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

* "Dinosaurs are extinct" can not be expressed as <code>[∀d: Dinosaur(d)] Extinct(d)</code>. Individual dinosaurs are not extinct, only dead. Dinosaurs, as a kind, are extinct.

* "Cats are widespread" can not be expressed as <code>[∃c: Cat(c)] Widespread(c)</code>. Individual cats cannot be widespread. Not even "many cats are widespread".

* Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as <code>[∃s: Soup(s)] WillMake(i, s)</code>. 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>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663073088883392518</ref>. So we say {{t|bảı jí baq tủzȳ}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t|sa tủzȳ}}.

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 "___ makes something satisfying property ___" and "The kind satisfying property ___ is extinct", and then fill them with {{t|lî tủzȳ}}. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq {{t|lıbāı}}, 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.

# '''Kind-level''' predicates, such as "___ are extinct" and "___ 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 "___ 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.

(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 '''baq kảtō''' is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)

Hoemai said in 2019 that {{t|baq pỏq}} does not introduce a scope<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236</ref>, and does not bind a variable {{t|pỏq}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like '''jí''' or '''súq'''. It has also been proposed that {{t|baq pỏq}} could bind {{t|pỏq}} after all, so that a sentence like {{t|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq shí pỏq}} could mean "People like themselves". The other possible sentence, "people like people", could still be rendered as {{t|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq baq shỉ pỏq}}.

'''baq''' does not mean "the typical X" (and never has).<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/334810940392341514/711970941240082502</ref> Typicality is orthogonal to '''baq''':<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/361588038586990592/684027791146090526</ref> you can call individual three-leaf clovers "typical", or say that '''baq''' clover rarely has four leaves.

* [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663107948628934706 Hoemāı's "gist" about baq and Carlson classes] on Discord.