[WikiDiscuss] Re: BPFK gismu Section: Parenthetical Remarks in Brivla Definition

--- In [email protected], "Jorge Llamb=EDas" <jjllambias@...> wrote:
>
> On 10/4/06, John E. Clifford <clifford-j@...> wrote:
>=20
> > There is probably an
> > alternate way of doing this where all the ultimate nodes are the
> > referent, but then the point of the nodes is somewhat lost. Of
> > course, the nodes need have no reality other than as ways of speaking
> > about the unltimate nodes, but we are not doing ontology here, just
> > logical structure.
>=20
> Wheras for me there are no ultimate nodes (i.e. nodes that don't subsume
> other nodes).

I think there is a poit at which no matter how you slice it, the
result of cutting is no longer a dog. To be sure, this is less likely
with temporal cuts, so in that sense there may be no ultimate nodes.=20
But there is a point where we pass over from dogs-by-distribution to
dogs-personally and, while, these are not ultimat nodes they occupy a
special place in the whole -- they are the real dogs, after all, even
if parts of them are also.

=20
> > So far as I can tell, immediate descendent is always well defined --
> > each path is a well-ordering and so descrete -- neither dense nor
> > continuous.
>=20
> Consider a dog, x, and x minus one hair, y. Is y an immediate
> descendent of x? But then what about z, defined as x minus half
> that hair? Wouldn't z be a descendant of x and have y as a
> descendant?

Interesting.  I suppose you could set it up that way.  I don't see any
reason to do so at the moment, but if a reason comes along (even a
philosophical one like this) we can accomodate.  As far as I can see,
the important features of the lattice are topological not metrical.=20
Indeed, I noticed that the notion of levels does not work directly at
all well.  The level below a pluality node is all the pluralitis
lacking one memner of the head, but it is also all those members
individually, so that successors are already level mixing, if levels
count.
=20
> > I think the move from one node to some of its decendents at least are
> > quite common in object language talk: "I saw three dogs [level n]. One
> > of them [level n-1, maybe n-2] ran to greet me. One of the others
> > [level n-2 for the "one", n-1 for "the others"] ran away." and so on.
>=20
> Whereas for me, all of those are at the same level. For me
> "x1 is/are among x2" is an object language relationship that holds
> between brodas of the same metalinguistic level, it is not the
> metalinguistic relationship between different level nodes, "x1 subsumes
> x2", which is the relationship that sets up the lattice.

Well, as I suspected, we are not in fact on the same page.  In tthe
model I presented, "among" is exactly the relation between a node and
any node above it on a constantly upward path.  In particular, each
dog is among Mr. Dog.  I hope you can explain what you thought I meant
or, more exactly, what you did mean (and still do, I suppose).





=20
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected]=20
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
=20