Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:59283)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDg1vLzBBoEfQv6PA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1R783s-0006mj-5R; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:53:20 -0700
Received: by gya6 with SMTP id 6sf4365954gya.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:53:05 -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-id:x-yahoo-newman-property
         :x-ymail-osg:x-yahoo-smtp:references:in-reply-to
         :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id
         :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date:to
         :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:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=c6pGeTeQgoaBun00ZzgRY6xIAG9EWRLge/q+QXBhLMQ=;
        b=HpVr4pxAfobTTAbQoaXUxxmYhPbiYFIPIia4npRyEdm+QwJCzavm38QE9h79Lk58Nb
         5N2hu6/8186ZzmJZxV6kQFMjAkFhh4gMbWIfunYE4ynSPbehX/cHC/dptv1SaGH5q7Hs
         oXSr5cZxN6NKJQB9k+wJ0CTWtbW+hiazYiwAI=
Received: by 10.236.189.74 with SMTP id b50mr3049374yhn.15.1316793184442;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.231.102.70 with SMTP id f6ls975223ibo.4.gmail; Fri, 23 Sep
 2011 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.144.71 with SMTP id a7mr1575339icv.25.1316793183593;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.144.71 with SMTP id a7mr1575338icv.25.1316793183582;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm11-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm11-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.91.40])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id fc18si2120498icb.1.2011.09.23.08.53.03;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.40 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.40;
Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm11.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 15:53:03 -0000
Received: from [98.138.89.252] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 15:53:03 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1044.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 15:53:03 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 270651.95760.bm@omp1044.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 22303 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2011 15:53:03 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: cUmmuJcVM1loR52yZLa55owRUKmiIdczLMW9XXyKaFO2zE2
 W7ttis4vyFsizAKvfWPdIRw8aJeu4AYux_b7ExdSJieV3ng84T5eg_ouElMx
 mU2660y5psSS80vmUMg2NQHvQxC9ViKkaNnCOXD5rPdKxlgprkBZZ7NY095Z
 qkdQCpUvjBcS356I.yyJkFPyi.qySwzDjxO_Bna2quqwt0qu5Onq8JmRxXKv
 v.E0GaJlZWGnOenkLj00DjPg6Qrufbvz.aHXxjS3X0tE3Q034rakadxipxIv
 YfBiPpiEGtFrmIy.F439Pr9c3AHWq.Kvbk7EztCV_Ik3x2G.4jq7AP6vhtQ1
 67ZpoHsQ0ANLXWzQh6o_7.G4XBetNSrhk3WjtIexjK3BV5alFFYhdIf2p1Cn
 O_guIkIDJREc5SNn.TDyHi_w4
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g-
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie)
        by smtp109-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2011 08:53:02 -0700 PDT
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> <20110923004537.GC24443@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20110923004537.GC24443@gonzales>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <D3D1DF6D-759A-4222-877F-C493F64EF6B3@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_10080605_AHnHjkQAAW8jTnvWtwDn0BX8feE
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:04:42 -0400
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
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 98.138.91.40
 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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+)
X-Spam_score: 1.2
X-Spam_score_int: 12
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:  The problem with scope is usually in {zo'e} place. Not that
    it is a quantified variable so much as that it is anaphora for something
   that is hooked to the quantifier or it's surrogate (in this case in conjunctive
    distribution or generalization). I'm not sure what plural quantification
   is, but piro lo broda is just lo broda (maybe with restriction on distribution
    -- i'm not sure). Pi su'o lo broda is some subbunch. The singular/ plural
    debate seems pointless, given the parallelism of L-sets and plural reference
    . Sent from my iPad [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.2 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (kali9putra[at]yahoo.com)
  1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
               [Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?209.85.160.189>]
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

The problem with scope is usually in {zo'e} place.  Not that it is a quanti=
fied variable so much as  that it is anaphora for something that is hooked =
to the quantifier or it's surrogate (in this case in conjunctive distributi=
on or generalization).
I'm not sure what plural quantification is, but piro lo broda is just lo br=
oda (maybe with restriction  on distribution --  i'm not sure).  Pi su'o lo=
 broda is some subbunch.
The singular/ plural debate seems pointless, given the parallelism of L-set=
s and plural reference .
Sent from my iPad

On Sep 22, 2011, at 20:45, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Thursday, 2011-09-22 at 19:39 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>=20
>> 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>:
>>>>>>     ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku
>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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
>=20
> Well OK, maybe we aren't agreeing on how {mei} works.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
>>> 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
>=20
> Well actually... aren't {pi ro} and {pi su'o} plural quantifiers?
>=20
>> ).
>> And I agree that a plural constant cannot be a witness for the
>> singular existential quantifier.
>=20
> 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)...
>=20
>> So you would be saying that "lo pa klesi be lo gerku" is to be treated
>> as plural?
>=20
> Assuming that gives a kind: not *as* a plural, but *like* a plural as
> regards singular quantification.
>=20
> 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)
>=20
>>>> 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?
>>>=20
>>> 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 use=
s
>>> - it introduces an existential, and (part of) the question is what scop=
e
>>> 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 ab=
out:
>>=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"?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> (Although JC and I are talking about it elsewhere in another strand of
> this tangled thread, re the skina example)
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>>> But wait, I was missing something obvious.
>>>=20
>>> 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
>=20
> Yes, could be.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
>> Would you agree that "lo se danlu cu klesi lo danlu"?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.