Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.141 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.141;
Message-ID: <1316620792.8048.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

As you will notice, I (like Chierchia, as I read him) think of generalizati=
on as=20

modal -- intensional, if you will, not a gadri or quantifier, which create=
=20
various problems by introducing strange entities or kinds of quantification=
. =20
So, I don't think those applies to the elephant case or the two-legged huma=
ns.
I doubt that {so'e} will adequately cover generalization, since most creatu=
res=20
occasionally do thinks that their kind don't generally do.
And the property solution is subject to the same problems as the direct one=
 is,=20
one- and zero-legged people are not characterized by two-leggedness any mor=
e=20
than they are two-legged, unless you mean that {ckaji} is automatically=20
generalizing, which is surely possible (though then you do have to account =
for=20
clearly non-generalizing uses).
I don't see what the problem is with {mi nelci ro se danlu} nor how throwin=
g in=20
a {ka} or an indirect question is meant to help.

----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, September 20, 2011 8:15:03 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural=
=20
variable

* Tuesday, 2011-09-20 at 21:16 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.c=
om>:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > The problems with counting and so on which arise when we mix kinds and
> > instances could be rectified by simply declaring that {da} and
> > {[quantifier] [selbri]} never get kinds - i.e. the corresponding
> > variables are over 'mundane' singular objects (AT minus K, in
> > Chierchia's notation).
>=20
> What would you then say of these:
>=20
>     ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku
>=20
>     lo xanto cu bramau ro drata ke tumla danlu
>=20
>     lo remna cu se tuple re da

I would say that they are false.

For the first, I don't think that's a problem.

For the third: it could be replaced by {lo remna cu ckaji lo ka se tuple
re da}, or by a tanru - {lo remna cu re mei se tuple} - or by an
explicit generic quantifier, which {so'e} arguably is: {so'e remna cu se
tuple re da}.

The second is toughest, and a good demonstration of the power of
kind-quantification, but since it is in the end a case of generics,
I think it can be handled similarly:
{so'e xanto cu bramau so'e tumla danlu poi na xanto}

That doesn't help with a pure kind predication, though. For that, e.g.
"I like all animal species", you'd have to be explicit about the kind
predication:
{mi nelci ro ka danlu ma kau}

(assuming {ka} and qkau work so as to make that work)

In general, it seems to me that kind predications resolve as one of
* existential quantification
* generic quantification
* property predication

{lo broda} might allow you to be ambiguous between the three, but for
complicated sentences you'd have to say what you mean.

Is that so bad?

> > I suggested something like this before, and I think you complained that
> > we shouldn't be separating out kinds from mundanes... but since
> > Chierchia does it, I feel licensed to push again for an explanation of
> > what would go so wrong if we did separate them out.
>=20
> I see no major problem in separating the metalinguistic construct
> "kind", as defined for example by Chierchia, for contexts in which
> they appear together with their manifestations. My only problem would
> be if you forbid saying things like (quote) "My two favourite things
> are to cycle and to go to the cinema alone", i.e. if you don't allow
> "to cycle" and "to go to the cinema alone" to count as things in any
> context.

So I think I'd want to make that
{lo ka nu mi relxilma'e sazri ku joi lo ka nu mi nonkansa ve skina cu
remei traji lo ka mi nelci}.

Martin

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.