686
edits
Kind: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(WIP) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The need for a way to make claims about kinds is apparent from examples like the following: | 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 <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 | * "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>. | * 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}}. | ||
One solution | 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 our vocabulary. It is a bit 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 == | == Semantics == | ||
{{t|baq rảı}} does not introduce a scope<ref>https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/652268988931506236</ref>, and does not bind a variable {{t|ráı}}. Instead it behaves like a constant like '''jí''' or '''súq'''. | |||
# '''Kind-level''' | 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. | ||
# '''Individual-level'''... | |||
# '''Stage-level'''... | # '''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. | |||
# '''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.) | |||
== 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. | |||
== External links == | |||
* [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/663107948628934706 Hoemāı's "gist" about baq and Carlson classes] on Discord. | |||