Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:49321)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCzre_zBBoEznVYQw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1R6tto-0001Vc-Jy; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:46:06 -0700
Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32sf2416993pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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;
        bh=gq9qjFeZn9+VZRwbNfqwv1CcveFjKPCDDStr3+RbyDI=;
        b=z8dE+dYchc2szG4wyL1CrSljmkpQMaNYcOER8ivDFKUe2C2bSQXxji47Fl2oGzqKnS
         qutBqELkJoifrVmSFvsCRmQmS3aKzDSgiOH5ipgJEgt9HlEb1W3ffnJYEA/Mhe+uyrgr
         Pkiyw6nwXZzIBFxt9yBupzRwg9bB50pndyUjI=
Received: by 10.68.14.193 with SMTP id r1mr768483pbc.17.1316738739365;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.158.84 with SMTP id ws20ls9945790pbb.4.gmail; Thu, 22 Sep
 2011 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr4447073pbk.6.1316738738522;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr4447072pbk.6.1316738738510;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si12260359pbb.1.2011.09.22.17.45.38
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8N0jbDe018094
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:45:38 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1R6ttZ-0005Xo-Ii
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:45:37 -0400
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:45:37 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Message-ID: <20110923004537.GC24443@gonzales>
References: <20110919013653.GC6878@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cAG0okZRcop0CiHTs0f-HsS-PmKkQb1ZwiWBDOLMDXQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110919231314.GI4310@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2e=vhmx6r66-hJb0AW1siHFYSn-YMxpZTo6Jh_oC5dXwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110920034640.GK4310@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eafjESM0EE5527LVa61wB_rL7GX38W2KdQxgzk7fBmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110921011503.GS4310@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c9wFGEj6m_Bu6gHxKc7uaiLviwoO9jASkf7_Z55u4r2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110922035512.GA23348@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cppW2CKqsY=5DZipvrM5uSKCGvJpyd94zQWnn=nXHiQw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cppW2CKqsY=5DZipvrM5uSKCGvJpyd94zQWnn=nXHiQw@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: renvi
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  * Thursday, 2011-09-22 at 19:39 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
    > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote: >
   > * Wednesday, 2011-09-21 at 19:08 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
    > >> >> ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku > > > >> The problem with saying it
    is false is that if "lo blabi gerku > >> cu klesi lo gerku" is true, and
   "lo blabi gerku cu gerku" is also > >> true, it's hard to say why at least
    "su'o klesi be lo gerku cu gerku" > >> would not be true. > > > > But we
   already have the same kind of weirdness with plurals: > > lo gerku remei cu
    remei .i je lo gerku remei cu gerku .i je ku'i ro > > remei na ku gerku remei
    > > .i su'o boi re mei ja'a gerku re mei .i mu'a lo gunma be lo re gerku
   > be'o noi re mei cu gerku re mei [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid


--4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Thursday, 2011-09-22 at 19:39 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Wednesday, 2011-09-21 at 19:08 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@g=
mail.com>:
> >> >> =A0 =A0 ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku
> >
> >> The problem with saying it is false is that if "lo blabi gerku
> >> cu klesi lo gerku" is true, and "lo blabi gerku cu gerku" is also
> >> true, it's hard to say why at least "su'o klesi be lo gerku cu gerku"
> >> would not be true.
> >
> > But we already have the same kind of weirdness with plurals:
> > lo gerku remei cu remei .i je lo gerku remei cu gerku .i je ku'i ro
> > remei na ku gerku remei
>=20
> .i su'o boi re mei ja'a gerku re mei .i mu'a lo gunma be lo re gerku
> be'o noi re mei cu gerku re mei

Well OK, maybe we aren't agreeing on how {mei} works.

Nor gunmas. Allowing gerku gunmas to gerku would cause the same kind of
quantification problems we saw with kinds... I suppose you want to skirt
these problems by further restricting common domains?

> > Generally: you can't quantify over plurals (assuming we agree to the
> > extent I'm under the impression we do on how plurals work); not being
> > able to quantify kinds is a similar kind of restriction.
>=20
> I do think we agree that Lojban quantifiers are singular (you could
> quantify over plurals with plural quantifiers, which Lojban apparently
> doesn't have

Well actually... aren't {pi ro} and {pi su'o} plural quantifiers?

> ).
> And I agree that a plural constant cannot be a witness for the
> singular existential quantifier.

Great. I think we actually do see eye to eye as regards plurals. One in
the nose for those who claim these discussions never come to anything,
eh? Or at least it will be once it gets written up (which I still think
slightly premature)...

> So you would be saying that "lo pa klesi be lo gerku" is to be treated
> as plural?

Assuming that gives a kind: not *as* a plural, but *like* a plural as
regards singular quantification.

In particular, I'd guess that using a singular quantifier on a kind
should resolve as quantification over instances of the kind.
(And if it's a kind of kinds... over the union of the instances of the
kinds, I guess)

> >> It could. So in your system "lo du'u ko'a ckaji lo ka broda na nibli
> >> lo du'u ko'a broda" is true, right?
> >
> > Depends what you mean... for any predicate broda, I would want that to
> > be false. But {se tuple re da} is not just a predicate in the above uses
> > - it introduces an existential, and (part of) the question is what scope
> > that existential has. Stuffing it inside a {lo ka} prevents it from
> > scoping over the {lo remna}.
>=20
> For me "lo remna" is a constant, so there is no scoping over it. What abo=
ut:
>=20
> lo remna zo'u re da zo'u da tuple ry
> "As for humans, there are two things that be-leg them."
>=20
> Would that be enough to keep your "lo remna" outside the scope of "re"?

Not as I'm currently thinking I'd like to understand anaphora, no. That
would be almost or exactly equivalent to {re da tuple lo remna} - the
only possible difference being that since {lo remna} is in the scope of
the {re da} in the latter, it possibly should get interpreted twice with
possibly different results. But that isn't the issue we were talking
about.

(Although JC and I are talking about it elsewhere in another strand of
this tangled thread, re the skina example)

Generally: I'm still basically hoping for the Nirvana Conjecture
I mentioned earlier, even once (at least simple cases of) anaphora are
included. In those terms, we're talking here about the meaning of
predications some of whose arguments are zo'e-expressions - which is
a second stage of processing after all anaphora etc are resolved.
I think.

> > But wait, I was missing something obvious.
> >
> > You can still use {lo}:
> > {ro da poi na'e xanto se danlu zo'u lo xanto cu bramau lo tumla danlu b=
e da}.
>=20
> Sure, that works too. Most predicates don't come with a built-in
> subkind place though:
>=20
>   lo smoka cu cmamau ro drata taxfu
>=20
> But you could appeal to fi'o klesi:
>=20
>   ro da poi na'e smoka klesi lo taxfu zo'u lo smoka cu cmamau lo taxfu
> be fi'o klesi da

Yes, could be.

Alternatively, how about having {pi ro} quantify over subkinds, such
that {lo smoka cu cmamau pi ro lo taxfu poi na'e smoka klesi} works?

> Would you agree that "lo se danlu cu klesi lo danlu"?

I don't know... it might be nice, for purposes like the above, to have
{klesi} hold *only* of kinds - and I think selda'u should be mundanes.

Martin

--4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk571rEACgkQULC7OLX7LNbVuwCfZsiVJEjeLnnPsx4Szn88izsF
1EgAoKkOSS8zugPmfVoH27SuH9N5tPta
=MjrD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4ZLFUWh1odzi/v6L--