Kind: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:39, 21 October 2021

Toaq has a quantieier, baq, which is used to talk about kinds of things, rather than some or all instances of them.

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

Why have kinds?

The need for a way to make claims about kinds is apparent from examples like the following:

"Dinosaurs are extinct" can not be expressed as $\left[\forall D\colon {\text{Dinosaur}}(D)\right]{\text{Extinct}}(D)$ . Individual dinosaurs are not extinct, only dead. Dinosaurs, as a kind, are extinct.
"Cats are widespread" can not be expressed as $\left[\exists C\colon {\text{Cat}}(C)\right]{\text{Widespread}}(C)$ . Individual cats cannot be widespread. Not even "many cats are widespread".
Even "I'll make some soup" can not be expressed as $\left[\exists S\colon {\text{Soup}}(S)\right]{\text{WillMake}}({\text{I}},S)$ . 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"^[1]. So we say bảı jí baq tủzy, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is 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 "___ makes something satisfying property ___" and "The kind satisfying property ___ is extinct", and then fill them with tûzy ja. (This is the approach taken by pre-kind Toaq lıbaı, or Lojban jaukpa.) 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 c 1 word when it very much feels like we are talking about things and not properties.

Semantics

When we fill an argument place with a baq-term, the logical meaning of the resulting claim depends on the Carlson class of the predicate with regards to that argument place.

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 sa or tu terms.
Individual-level predicates are true of their argument "no matter when": descriptions not tied to a timeline, like "___ is/are intelligent". A baq argument to such a predicate is interpreted as a general (but maybe not 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 baq argument to such a predicate is reduced to its 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 baq kảto is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)

Binding

Hoemai said in 2019 that baq pỏq does not introduce a scope^[2], and does not bind a variable pỏq. Instead it behaves like a constant like jí or súq. It has also been proposed that baq pỏq could bind pỏq after all, so that a sentence like Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq shí pỏq could mean "People like themselves". The other possible sentence, "people like people", could still be rendered as Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq baq shỉ pỏq.

The typical…

baq does not mean "the typical X" (and never has).^[3] Typicality is orthogonal to baq:^[4] you can call individual three-leaf clovers "typical", or say that baq clover rarely has four leaves.

External links

Hoemaı's "gist" about baq and Carlson classes on Discord
Hoemaı:

  So, gist:
  There are three types of predicates when it comes to baq predication.
  1) Kind predicates
  2) stage level predicates
  3) individual level predicates
  These are properties of predicates, or more exactly, of their argument places.
  Depending on the place type, different things happen with baq.
  Kind predicates make claims about kinds themselves. These cannot be paraphrased using sa. Examples: dinosaurs are extinct != there exist some dinosaurs that are extinct; cats are widespread != there are some cats that are widespread; looking for gold != there is some gold such that I’m looking for it
  Using baq with stage level predicates can be reduced to sa. These are predicates that a otherwise used with non-baq arguments. (baq) cats are in my garden = there are some cats in my garden
  Individual level predicates are also predicates that basically use non-baq arguments. When using baq in those places, it can't be paraphrased using sa. dogs are smart != there are some dogs that are smart
  Summary: No matter which kind of predicate you're dealing with, every non-baq place can also be filled by a baq argument, but not every baq place can be filled by non-baq arguments.
  (There isn't that much left to spoil, other than the real reason why baq is a quantifier/determiner)

↑ https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663073088883392518
Hoemaı:

  As for baı, there are two meanings of "make/build"
  The first one, which is the one used in the TwE example above, is something like "to manifest a kind".
  The other, which is distinct from the first, is the one that you use to say "I made this table".
  You can use the first to say the second one, but only indirectly: "This table is the result of me manifesting table kind"
↑ https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236

Hoaqgıo: I guess [baq] doesn't create scope

Hoemaı: No, it's a reference to a kind.
↑ https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/334810940392341514/711970941240082502
Hoemaı: baq does not mean "typical" (and never has).
↑ https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/361588038586990592/684027791146090526
Hoemaı:

  [image of a three-leaf clover beside a four-leaf clover]
  "The thing on the left is a typical clover."
  "(baq) Typical clovers have three leaves."
  "(baq) clovers are plants."
  Typicality is orthogonal to baq.
  (typicality is indirectly related because it comes into play when we try to judge whether certain generic claims are true or not, but baq itself does not mean "the typical")

[manifesting-a-kind-1] ttps://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663073088883392518
Hoemaı:

As for baı, there are two meanings of "make/build"
The first one, which is the one used in the TwE example above, is something like "to manifest a kind".
The other, which is distinct from the first, is the one that you use to say "I made this table".
You can use the first to say the second one, but only indirectly: "This table is the result of me manifesting table kind"

[no-scope-2] ttps://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236

Hoaqgıo: I guess [baq] doesn't create scope

Hoemaı: No, it's a reference to a kind.

[not-typical-3] ttps://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/334810940392341514/711970941240082502
Hoemaı: baq does not mean "typical" (and never has).

[orthogonal-4] ttps://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/361588038586990592/684027791146090526
Hoemaı:

[image of a three-leaf clover beside a four-leaf clover]
"The thing on the left is a typical clover."
"(baq) Typical clovers have three leaves."
"(baq) clovers are plants."
Typicality is orthogonal to baq.
(typicality is indirectly related because it comes into play when we try to judge whether certain generic claims are true or not, but baq itself does not mean "the typical")

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Toaq has a quantifier, {{t|baq}}, which is used to talk about '''kinds''' of things, rather than some or all instances of them.
+Toaq has a quantieier, {{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".
+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".
 == Why have kinds? ==
 The need for a way to make claims about kinds is apparent from examples like the following:
-* "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.
+* "Dinosaurs are extinct" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\forall D\colon \text{Dinosaur}(D)\right] \text{Extinct}(D)</math>. 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".
+* "Cats are widespread" can not be expressed as <math>\left[\exists C\colon \text{Cat}(C)\right] \text{Widespread}(C)</math>. 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}}.
+* 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 "___ 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.
+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.
 == Semantics ==
 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 "___ 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.
+# '''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 "___ 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.
+# '''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 '''baq kảtō''' is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.)
+(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.)
 == Binding ==
-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}}.
+Hoemai said in 2019 that {{t|baq pỏq}} does not introduce a scope<ref name=no-scope />, and does not bind a variable {{t|pỏq}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like {{t|jí}} or {{t|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}}.
 == The typical… ==
-'''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.
+{{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.
 == External links ==
-* [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663107948628934706 Hoemāı's "gist" about baq and Carlson classes] on Discord.
+<ul>
+<li>[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663107948628934706 Hoemaı's "gist" about baq and Carlson classes] on Discord {{Transcript|[[Hoemaı]]:<poem>
+  So, gist:
+  There are three types of predicates when it comes to {{t|baq}} predication.
+) Kind predicates
+) stage level predicates
+) individual level predicates
+  These are properties of predicates, or more exactly, of their argument places.
+  Depending on the place type, different things happen with {{t|baq}}.
+  Kind predicates make claims about kinds themselves. These cannot be paraphrased using sa. Examples: dinosaurs are extinct != there exist some dinosaurs that are extinct; cats are widespread != there are some cats that are widespread; looking for gold != there is some gold such that I’m looking for it
+  Using {{t|baq}} with stage level predicates can be reduced to sa. These are predicates that a otherwise used with non-{{t|baq}} arguments. ({{t|baq}}) cats are in my garden = there are some cats in my garden
+  Individual level predicates are also predicates that basically use non-{{t|baq}} arguments. When using {{t|baq}} in those places, it can't be paraphrased using sa. dogs are smart != there are some dogs that are smart
+  Summary: No matter which kind of predicate you're dealing with, every non-{{t|baq}} place can also be filled by a {{t|baq}} argument, but not every {{t|baq}} place can be filled by non-{{t|baq}} arguments.
+  (There isn't that much left to spoil, other than the real reason why {{t|baq}} is a quantifier/determiner)
+</poem>}}</li>
+</ul>
+<references>
+<ref name="manifesting-a-kind">
+https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663073088883392518
+{{Transcript|[[Hoemaı]]:<poem>
+  As for {{t|baı}}, there are two meanings of "make/build"
+  The first one, which is the one used in the TwE example above, is something like "to manifest a kind".
+  The other, which is distinct from the first, is the one that you use to say "I made this table".
+  You can use the first to say the second one, but only indirectly: "This table is the result of me manifesting table kind"
+</poem>}}
+</ref>
+<ref name="no-scope">
+https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236
+{{Transcript|
+<blockquote>[[Hoaqgıo]]: I guess [{{t|baq}}] doesn't create scope</blockquote>
+[[Hoemaı]]: No, it's a reference to a kind.
+}}
+</ref>
+<ref name="not-typical">
+https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/334810940392341514/711970941240082502
+{{Transcript|[[Hoemaı]]: {{t|baq}} does not mean "typical" (and never has).}}
+</ref>
+<ref name="orthogonal">
+https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/361588038586990592/684027791146090526
+{{Transcript|[[Hoemaı]]:<poem>
+  ''[image of a three-leaf clover beside a four-leaf clover]''
+  "The thing on the left is a typical clover."
+  "({{t|baq}}) Typical clovers have three leaves."
+  "({{t|baq}}) clovers are plants."
+  Typicality is orthogonal to baq.
+  (typicality is indirectly related because it comes into play when we try to judge whether certain generic claims are true or not, but baq itself does not mean "the typical")
+</poem>}}
+</ref>
+</references>