Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]:64366) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1R7Uva-0005k8-A6; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:17 -0700 Received: by fxg17 with SMTP id 17sf5514826fxg.16 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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=TofWQh7J1KVajrVKDmMkaygge/fn4ZaP7WCgWTmH1iY=; b=3K20nh0l3uqcSj+0VInFxT1pBm8Yno24oBxqFiqNZ8UgU0g3JU8Vp1KRgF9/o34BXz LyrUwSO9O7O9UZK/E0+xcRK61k8u6+4L0sbGGdY4VzBoIlHrzSIdy4YleFRhos3AQpYH n+mYRLSko00FeX9XAtedUGL7FCupaxmoZJmXw= Received: by 10.223.9.19 with SMTP id j19mr1141127faj.37.1316881081765; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.135.155 with SMTP id n27ls2080944bkt.0.gmail; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.141.199 with SMTP id n7mr1067206bku.0.1316881081019; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.141.199 with SMTP id n7mr1067205bku.0.1316881081004; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f43.google.com (mail-fx0-f43.google.com [209.85.161.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b26si729521fao.0.2011.09.24.09.18.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.43; Received: by mail-fx0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 19so5820911fxh.2 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.41.87 with SMTP id n23mr7104646fae.78.1316881080839; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.39.35 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110924150246.GA4576@gonzales> References: <20110918213323.GB6878@gonzales> <20110919013653.GC6878@gonzales> <1316535587.5338.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110921000757.GR4310@gonzales> <1316618218.15694.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110922234555.GB24443@gonzales> <1316736086.52889.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110924150246.GA4576@gonzales> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:18:00 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , 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: / On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > Well, the current xorlo proposal explicitly has a lo inside a quantifier > ignoring the quantifier: > > """ > Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a > constant, i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it > refers to one or more individuals, and changing the order > in which the constant term appears with respect to a > negation or with respect to a quantified term will not > change the meaning of the sentence. A constant is > something that always keeps the same referent or > referents. For example {lo broda} always refers to brodas. > """ > > The possibility of {ro da lo broda be da brode} makes it impossible to > take the above paragraph wholly literally. xorxes at least seemed to > want this to be the only exception. Yes, that paragraph was meant to describe terms without any unbound variables. It should be obvious that a term containing an unbound variable cannot be moved outside the scope of the quantifier that binds that variable. The point was just that "lo" does not introduce any new hidden quantifier that would itself prevent moving it out of the scope of another quantifier. > In xorxes' system, however, things aren't really as simple as this talk > of constancy might make them seem. According to my current understanding > of xorxes' system: the constant given by {lo} is often a kind, Yes. > and kind > predication often resolves as existential quantification. Meaning that you can reexpress some predications about kinds that don't involve existential quantification as a predication about instances of the kind that do involve existential quantification. Yes, I agree you can do that (for a certain type of predication). Where we seem to desagree is in thinking that this "resolution" is somehow a necessary step in the interpretation of the original predication. You seem to be saying that a domain of discourse that includes a kind but not its instances is somehow defective. (But at the same time you have no objection to domains that include an individual but not its stages, although there are analogous types of predications about individuals that can be resolved as existential quantification over stages.) > When the kind > predication is within the scope of a quantifier, the domain of the > existential quantification can vary. And the same thing happens when predication about an individual is within the scope of a quantifier. > So for example, I think the skina sentence actually does make sense in > xorxes' system, contrary to my first impressions. It's roughly of the > form > > {ro skina zo'u co'e lo so'i se cusku} > > which becomes, in hopefully understandable notation, > > FA s:skina(s). co'e(KIND X:(cusku(zo'e,X) /\ so'imei(X))) > > (X a plural variable, i.e. not restricted to atoms) > and the kind predication gets in this case an existential reading: > > FA s:skina(s). EX X\in C_s. co'e(X), > =A0 =A0where FA X\in C_s. (cusku(zo'e,X) /\ so'imei(X))) > > xorxes would probably dispute the exact form of that last step, but > would I think agree with the basic idea that the witnesses can depend on > s. You could also say that in "Every time I go to see a movie, I run into John", the stage of John that I run into can (and indeed will) depend on s. But you don't feel compelled to resolve the John sentence into John stages the same way you feel compelled to resolve the dialogue sentence into dialogue instances. All I'm saying is that in the dialogue sentence there is no mention of dialogue instances in the same way that in the John sentence there is no mention of John stages, even though you could zoom in into those if you really wanted to. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.