5
edits
Kind: Difference between revisions
m
→Semantics: Remove ◌̉ tone
(tuzu → tuze) |
m (→Semantics: Remove ◌̉ tone) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* "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. | * "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 <math>\left[\exists C\colon \text{Cat}(C)\right] \text{Widespread}(C)</math>. 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 <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|baı jí báq | * 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|baı jí báq tuze}}, and only the result of our efforts (if we succeed) is {{t|sá tuze}}. | ||
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|lä | 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|lä tuze 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 == | == Semantics == | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
# '''Stage-level''' predicates are true only of their argument in their current temporal stage. A {{t|báq}} argument to such a predicate is reduced to its {{t|sá}} equivalent: "cats are playing" means "some cats are playing". | # '''Stage-level''' predicates are true only of their argument in their current temporal stage. A {{t|báq}} argument to such a predicate is reduced to its {{t|sá}} 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|báq | (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|báq kato}} is to treat it the way you'd treat an indefinite noun phrase like "cats" in English.) | ||
== The typical… == | == The typical… == | ||