Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:43903)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDYmO_zBBoExy5dvw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1R6tDE-0001QK-GV; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:02:02 -0700
Received: by ywm3 with SMTP id 3sf3939611ywm.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id
         :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to
         :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=38IaIqLj03Ss/yB/jYhNDTtAs/Y6Dxe3JBXvCQ2nQT4=;
        b=FVmIqDqF+lENOIl9X0jASoqghyLxAzc5OVQdG2T9egikgRXDsnlXf/ZRPb0zwGsiPa
         jjQc5s9Hj5rz4zgm6f6b1TcRnwsCumQsLZHx+s7is650XPwL61On1LcoGmuNnCzxBSdQ
         Kcv7SMhe6dgGmA4Q7oklZCKeYRLoZRXHk2vT4=
Received: by 10.101.135.17 with SMTP id m17mr619742ann.2.1316736088725;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.101.12.9 with SMTP id p9ls9439696ani.6.gmail; Thu, 22 Sep 2011
 17:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.15.1 with SMTP id s1mr2466291ani.25.1316736087526;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.15.1 with SMTP id s1mr2466290ani.25.1316736087507;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm16.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm16.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.217])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id u39si19490ybe.3.2011.09.22.17.01.27;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.217 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.217;
Received: from [66.94.237.192] by nm16.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 00:01:27 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.117] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 00:01:27 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 00:01:27 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 179322.55735.bm@omp1022.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 54550 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Sep 2011 00:01:27 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: OLI0Pk0VM1nbagPYsa2OUwNtdWMRtgVb3pMGjjuzKcZXHbG
 dSmI8YTELbH7_qdRmDDl5poE.9Wto5lvtrrP.RS1yxzKwzYM01.cPhtSt4mQ
 jeMSscq2VhPo9EE63MJ7btkURV3J5LI4I5twrU_OwBQMrIKzw4me7vDGJPxB
 XYZ0Lyf6hj0J86nxnR1oDYdF03BB_PIvcoYW9NspGJMG70PNzpINIMqT7oWU
 FPsexnYOxOkcrmTPhENQZAkBs2ODF_cn2v7iWWwCych6ThBwIuTZcQRRowlo
 QrsFFX4RYfEug9TAFdf7Ng1D.7lqRA33urPSy9NnVPFExC1Pru9IjHLhTTTO
 n4I.mOklbTetJp7fZ_ZkFrPELDuIwO939myqnK44e0UqAMG5kmG26fDDO_Mz
 iuzPEzumQe_vjslBxPfJdZn4LjVmk6roA1He0A2kLZxwArrCUh8cI.CmykAj
 pWPnYN.3HFvzjsw--
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:01:26 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.113.315625
References: <E5F310CB-A415-43EE-BE16-634C7F651DE7@yahoo.com> <20110918172927.GA4310@gonzales> <CAO7tK2cF45Vc1WNktVGg0PHtE0cMRutok7_1fLDwTu6kHGvUWA@mail.gmail.com> <20110918213323.GB6878@gonzales> <CAO7tK2cZuVV-1+UMZpyeitXt+waox6SskNyYUWAzNUN-EuSMTA@mail.gmail.com> <20110919013653.GC6878@gonzales> <CAO7tK2cAG0okZRcop0CiHTs0f-HsS-PmKkQb1ZwiWBDOLMDXQg@mail.gmail.com> <1316535587.5338.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110921000757.GR4310@gonzales> <1316618218.15694.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110922234555.GB24443@gonzales>
Message-ID: <1316736086.52889.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:01:26 -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
In-Reply-To: <20110922234555.GB24443@gonzales>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.217
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

What?  Why would anything ignore a universal quantifier if it in some way 
depended on it.  Or a particuolar for that matter, since Skolem functions depend 
on the constants as well as the bound variables.  The shift is simply one of 
context: the fact that the interesting movie in Snow White clearly affects what 
dialog I'm going to get better.  If you insist, then the {zo'e} there are to 
"that movie", which blocks the shift for lack of a primary reference outside.

Do you mean "bridi"{ rather than "selbri" here (not that I expect you can be 
sure, since the terminology is so screwed up)?
So far as I can tell, you are the one who comes closest to thinking {zo'e} is a 
Skilem function, or, at least, a particular quantifier.  I don't think it ever 
is and I don't see xorxes claiming that either.  It is what I want it to be or 
would want if I thought about the matter.



----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, September 22, 2011 6:45:55 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Wednesday, 2011-09-21 at 08:16 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

> I am probably obtuse (as well as abstruse), but I don't see the
> problems here.  In the ckina sentence, the {lo} phrases are all in the
> scope of the universal quantifier on events and so are defined for
> each particular case as need be, different bunches for different
> contexts.

But wasn't one of the main selling-points of xorlo that {lo} ignores
such scope issues?

I assumed the rule you were going for was that {lo [selbri]} gives
a Skolem function whose only arguments are the quantified variables
which literally appear in the selbri, as in {broda ro da lo broda be
da}.

If not that, then what rule?

> I can't comment on {zo'e} since I don't know what it means,
> but in most of the readings, including the quantifier version,
> negation doesn't seem to be a problem. What problems there are, if
> any, seem to be with picking that interpretation of {zo'e} (I'm not
> sure that there is a universally acceptable interpretation -- why
> I prefer {zi'o}).

I'm not really sure what you mean here. But the point was that if we
want zo'e to have the obvious meaning in

A: xu do pu klama su'o zarci
B: mi na klama

(and I just did a quick poll on irc, which seemed to confirm that some
quite experienced lojban speakers expect zo'e to work this way),
then zo'e can't be a simple Skolem function if we keep everything else
simple (by which I mean: no funny business with kinds, or distributive
predication).

Martin

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, September 20, 2011 7:07:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
> variable
> 
> (posting here for now; feel free not to read if theorising annoys you)
> 
> * Tuesday, 2011-09-20 at 09:19 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> 
> > We seem to be in a three-way cross-purpose conversation.  As far as
> > I can understand, for xorxes {lo broda} refers to broda-kind,
> > a something or other (xorxes has always had trouble when we get down
> > to defining it) which has individual brodas as manifestations
> > (avatars, etc.).
> >
> > MB seems usually to think {lo broda} is down up broda, the set (C-?)
> > of brodas assigned to the world of the present conversation by the
> > function which is the meaning of {broda}. which world he seems also to
> > define in a fairly restricted way, a situation.
> 
> I wouldn't agree with that summary.
> 
> The C was an attempt to get directly at certain uses of {zo'e} and {lo}
> which involve, effectively, existential quantification. There was not
> intended to be any funny business with intensionality - the expansion to
> the existential was meant to be done in a world, so in particular
> C would depend on the world. (Which may sound at first like funny
> business, but hopefully not at second.)
> 
> Xorxes would prefer to explain these existential uses of {zo'e} and {lo}
> by going via kinds. He might prefer not to put it in those terms,
> however.
> 
> JC would, if I understand correctly, explain them by appealing to
> disjunctive predication - i.e. we have a plural predication which
> resolves itself as a disjunction over atoms.
> 
> > I think {lo broda} refers to a L-set of brodas (or just a bunch of
> > them, without the set-talk) selected by the context.
> 
> When you talk of L-sets and bunches, I am taking you to mean that we are
> working in a domain like Chierchia's - essentially an atomic boolean
> algebra - and an L-set/bunch is a not-necessarily-atomic element of the
> domain.
> 
> My only problem with having {lo broda}, and indeed {zo'e}, give simply
> Skolem functions with value one of these bunches is that they are often
> used in expressions which seem to be about usual individuals rather than
> kinds, but whose meanings can't be explained by this treatment of {lo}
> and {zo'e} without going via kinds or introducing distributive
> predication. Since I consider routing via kinds to be something of
> a hack, and don't really understand how the hack works in general, and
> consider distributive predication for this purpose even more of a hack,
> I was hoping for another approach.
> 
> Examples of such usage:
> For {zo'e}, pretty much any negated sentence.
> For {lo}, the skina sentence from the gadri BPFK section page,
> which I mentioned in a previous mail, will do:
> {ca ro nu mi rere'u catlu lo skina kei mi cpacu lo so'i se cusku poi mi
> na cpacu ca lo pamoi}
> 
> I've no real idea how to explain that using kinds...
> 
> Similarly for many of the other sentences on that page.
> 
> > When it comes to using these different definitions, we generally get
> > about the same results, but some definitions appear to require more
> > mechanisms than others.  (I have passed over xorxes' insistence on
> > bringing in person segments necessarily along with persons and his
> > contrarian refusal to have brodas along with broda kind in the
> > universe of a discussion).
> >
> > They are also terminologically unified in that both MB 's and my view
> > would hold that the maximal set of brodas in a given situation is
> > broda-kind in that situation,
> 
> Not really... I'm currently understanding kinds as Chierchia does:
> they're actual atoms in our universe, and predications which involve
> only kinds are true in all worlds or none.

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.