Kind: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:48, 4 February 2022

Toaq has a quantifier, 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", just like Chẻo chỏ baq shỉ pỏq does currently. 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 Show transcript

↑ https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663073088883392518 Show transcript
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 Show transcript

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

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

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 Show transcript
Hoemaı: baq does not mean "typical" (and never has).

[orthogonal-4] ttps://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/361588038586990592/684027791146090526 Show transcript
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 22: / Line 22: @@
 == Binding ==
-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}}.
+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", just like {{t|Chẻo chỏ baq shỉ pỏq}} does currently. The other possible sentence, "people like people", could still be rendered as {{t|Chỏ baq shỉ pỏq baq shỉ pỏq}}.
 == The typical… ==