Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:59055)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDE9_LzBBoESXOimA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1R799X-0007Jh-Tq; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:03:16 -0700
Received: by vcbfl17 with SMTP id fl17sf1311371vcb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:03:01 -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=i/19y6osnWtBcDjX32EXiTPOYSQ+nUVdA6q7vgujZS4=;
        b=sUggGT49mYYglEzyAjgzRRtm8xEm2PKQpAcqVCweJXGkfCPFQvU1ZjTYzkDJ1M/aYr
         /+yeqtlDpxCu6Qt6DkSNYdTBWYYwIBZrUZoGzUakXuKgOMttNf7iFAqRYgvHvoCVPSQm
         r69VEiWbbkG8rjXvNO33hmirf6HP/v3BEvgc4=
Received: by 10.220.106.210 with SMTP id y18mr872220vco.45.1316797380098;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.181.129 with SMTP id dw1ls3886834vdc.0.gmail; Fri, 23 Sep
 2011 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.73.196 with SMTP id n4mr2936459vdv.23.1316797379095;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.73.196 with SMTP id n4mr2936458vdv.23.1316797379083;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm23-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm23-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com. [98.139.212.191])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id bh5si5783090vdc.3.2011.09.23.10.02.58;
        Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.212.191 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.212.191;
Received: from [98.139.214.32] by nm23.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 17:02:58 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.194] by tm15.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 17:02:58 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Sep 2011 17:02:58 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 763813.33449.bm@omp1003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 99482 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2011 17:02:58 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: DN5Mv_4VM1mh4ul2WpS06AEvuCFhU0KKHarkBQ0JIRO7_ra
 5JUl4ki19GUhdExu2X2OjZMUHYidYpdxY_gvByQ60FZtzD3Xh7rf_mUfHLW7
 qd2imiYJ2TwlaxiN72_uuZ8eeTA6.XsxxxcmGzowoUFnguUC.VmQKm_b.8m2
 BgzSrds6vabxbvB_UWSPuzGXPYEctF9nQcwsH4IPlCP1IFgo2h0pCfPvS2Pt
 _DyNJ8DUAoS4.iGSmHnJ6GhFV7rJ8Xbbzmw5QW1CHEaZmiVFAo1rkv6j3lL8
 feQyBtmMN4rR4dkUPBG3kTvy4mCp4Hk76K4AVoo.71WAr5mihWb52qxsJolB
 Im8opxy_w._cJ0.gTzVQEcDEuE67UkJRhH5rxaELuu8JZ62gZl_UMizxWZDs
 iGIi5sBouaFxZ7jIX4MfwWSdKpCZt9P0E_VXgWhAOMAgkSdDplVI1irv7kLO
 UT0g4YBrh4x1nuGAJT9eIF7QC1DeJzY6Ypr0Dydz.
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g-
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie)
        by smtp120-mob.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Sep 2011 10:02:55 -0700 PDT
References: <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> <D3D1DF6D-759A-4222-877F-C493F64EF6B3@yahoo.com> <20110923160953.GB18894@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20110923160953.GB18894@gonzales>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <45B075D3-0863-4B8F-AF43-F53F37CA4B08@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_10085224_AHbHjkQAAFmlTnyvWw2uNlJSgrs
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 13:14:23 -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
 98.139.212.191 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: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

I'm not sure what {pi za'u} might mean.  I suppose the default is either 0 =
or 1, so not that different from {pisu'o} after all.  What did you mean to =
say?
{pi su'o lo broda} is an u specified subbunch but, if a quantifier, it, lik=
e {pi ro lo}, is over the domain of only lo broda.  Oh! Just saw the point =
of {za'u}, assuming that it's default is 0.  But then I don't understand {s=
u'o pi za'u} as adding anything.
Yes, bunches can include things from various worlds because domains often c=
ontain such: we talk about imaginary things and past things and so on, all =
not from this world but some other. This world only has what exists in this=
 world in it.  There is a much longer way of laying this out, but that is t=
he gist.  We need this to make general claims (along with other reasons), s=
ince we often want to generalize not just about the current whatevers but a=
bout past and future ones as well.
I am less sanguine than you about our agreement on anything, but that is ma=
inly because I am unsure where you all stand on central issues.


Sent from my iPad

On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:09, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Friday, 2011-09-23 at 12:04 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.=
com>:
>=20
>> 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).
>=20
> Or, as I'll continue to suggest until I see a reason to stop, that it's
> quantification over a domain which is hooked to the outer quantifier.
>=20
>> 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).
>=20
> {pi ro} was a stupid mistake. Make it {ro pi za'u}, maybe.
>=20
>> Pi su'o lo broda is some subbunch.
>=20
> Yes, i.e. a plural existential quantifier. No?
>=20
> Though it should probably be {pi za'u} rather than {pi su'o}, really.
>=20
> And be short for {su'o pi za'u}, maybe.
>=20
>> The singular/ plural debate seems pointless, given the parallelism of
>> L-sets and plural reference .
>=20
> I am under the impression that by now the three of us are in agreement
> on at least the basics of plural reference in lojban.
>=20
> You confuse me by seeming to allow bunches consisting of individuals
> from various worlds. I don't see how to handle that, and my instinct is
> to like it even less than generics-via-kinds.
>=20
> Martin
>=20
>> On Sep 22, 2011, at 20:45, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>> * Thursday, 2011-09-22 at 19:39 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gm=
ail.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=
@gmail.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 skir=
t
>>> 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 t=
o
>>>>> be false. But {se tuple re da} is not just a predicate in the above u=
ses
>>>>> - it introduces an existential, and (part of) the question is what sc=
ope
>>>>> 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 =
about:
>>>>=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 wit=
h
>>> 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=
 be 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
>> --=20
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group=
s "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/loj=
ban?hl=3Den.
>>=20

--=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.