Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:54110)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCN7IT0BBoEbgbgAw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1R8NUc-0004As-Qa; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:34:08 -0700
Received: by ywm3 with SMTP id 3sf8069417ywm.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:52 -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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=iIQw2kyCzNexvxVUoFn9FpZ8Sc2dF1+/QwV6zn0rnUY=;
        b=LdvOD18MtEF6wNhOhL66IVeu4g6N4x+Xcv0xccn65he8n1bt/jswu4x/kon5WuL9Ck
         mYxM7Kl66mzwKBvVj6dsKEDZ2KcvTeqaeVcgvlkaPSRgfWI1RGT0t3+LQfpOpBUVlOXf
         CZvddBY4mi9HilXKFAGcNaqbzPF8yTVDnFcss=
Received: by 10.101.152.17 with SMTP id e17mr1577666ano.0.1317090829900;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.101.195.12 with SMTP id x12ls18148035anp.0.gmail; Mon, 26 Sep
 2011 19:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.108.9 with SMTP id k9mr6281274anm.3.1317090829198;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.108.9 with SMTP id k9mr6281273anm.3.1317090829181;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm17.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm17.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.218])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id t7si22621989ani.0.2011.09.26.19.33.48;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.218 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.218;
Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm17.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2011 02:33:48 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.125] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2011 02:33:48 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2011 02:33:48 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 852349.24567.bm@omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 39474 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Sep 2011 02:33:48 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 5ll9KiYVM1lBY0I_1IXmxH7HIZIJL53auU72i81xi1ACOYS
 4a.7yCGUa20JgrL4O3h3bK5pxDMTrODjLqQjhfTCBnCXsRC36_lOTcrEJJeN
 TUxv9YHBKtNIIgZ0u0nlkjrWnH7ELHlzC8BXxIZvjj16Bz9Djh6AD1nO_XAk
 CWhEo55N20euOTE7fFL3aRDKvqsMX8Y5mvVUgmekPZDGQfBg5HZyGrKrw43k
 5cDF4PyeUMCf92Oi.7KOZaVRjpRXvzmQTgol5L1aDZlSqLAjO.pOa8w0TBgw
 xEEepwiBe_uxguYI.iHAiUDvKMZ7d.2Wa9KeIUYiTF.dS7Jiv5WDngnSzzo_
 D1EZBEnCK2Ok2v_cuhzfDRF4Q.Pc6856mVmtahADqFsVgQDWXws9TJrPlmsz
 Nny6Sryg1NPS9_rjCIYI0jFB6OCsPRMZ3nWkNajvp_V3nLN7UMvO8GvFCn9U
 bosQ-
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:48 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.114.317681
References: <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> <1316736086.52889.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110924150246.GA4576@gonzales> <CAO7tK2dNOSWyXBDzq3KSSqMsUx8f81vNtKugSCV0z_-VNCQFVg@mail.gmail.com> <20110925153046.GB4576@gonzales> <CAO7tK2cQNh5p2FhTJnniK_Pb_KOMYrDvvpCSPrk97yTomAXq5A@mail.gmail.com> <20110927012751.GK22625@gonzales>
Message-ID: <1317090828.8941.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:33:48 -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: <20110927012751.GK22625@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 66.94.237.218
 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: /

While I think that it is possible to make both the Platonic (all types, no=
=20
individuals) and Buddhist  (all segments, no perduring individuals) models =
work,=20
they both seem to me needlessly complex as models for Lojban (or English)=
=20
semantics.  Both languages assume perduring individuals and admit (if at al=
l)=20
types as syntheses of individuals and and segments as analyses. Talk about =
these=20
odd entities can be translated into talk about individuals without loss and=
=20
apparently in several different ways.  So why muck up the ontology?  Now, o=
f=20
course, these remaoks assume that either one of you is actually proposing o=
ne of=20
these odd, which I am not sure you are.  If you are, lay it out boldly and =
give=20
some arguments for it.  So far, the most that I can for the Platonic is tha=
t=20
Carlson uses types for some plurals -- but those types are just maximal bun=
ches,=20
as even he occasionally admits.  I haven't seen any uses for the Buddhist l=
ine.




----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, September 26, 2011 8:27:51 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural=
=20
variable

* Monday, 2011-09-26 at 19:31 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co=
m>:

> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > Would you even agree that, in the case that we have a predication
> > P(k1,k2) about kinds k1, k2
>=20
> (which is already in your Nirvana form)

Yes

> > which correspond to properties Q1(X), Q2(X),
> > and if the predication resolves existentially in all variables, then it
> > resolves as in the subject line of this thread, i.e. to
> >    EX (X1,X2). (C(X1,X2) /\ P(X1,X2))
> > where C is a context-glorked relation which depends on any quantifiers
> > (including ones over worlds) which the current predication is in the
> > scope of, and which is such that C(X1,X2) implies Q1(X1)/\Q2(X2)?
> >
> > (X, X1, X2 all plural mundane variables, i.e. not allowed to take kinds=
,
> > but not restricted to atoms)
>=20
> That would seem to be the definition of "resolves existentially",
> right? If you can find a new model in which what you expressed in
> terms of kinds can be reexpressed in terms of an existential
> quantification over the manifestations of the kinds, then we say that
> the predication about kinds in the original model "resolves
> existentially" in the new model.

I meant to ask whether you agree that this is the right form for that
existential quantification, when it does resolve to one.

> >> 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.
> >
> > Yes, I think so. "lions are in my garden" and "one or more lions are in
> > my garden" are equivalent - one is true iff the other is. Our formalism
> > should reflect that. So a model in which it holds of the kind Lion that
> >    in(Lion, my garden)
> > it should also hold that
> >    EX l. (lion(l) /\ in(l, my garden))
> > , and vice-versa.
>=20
> No, because you don't have lion instances in the first model, so the
> second one doesn't hold in that model. You have a different model for
> each of the sentences that are truth value equivalent.

But forgetting about the formalism for a second, surely you'd agree that
"lions are in my garden" is logically equivalent to "one or more lions
are in my garden" in every reasonable sense? In particular, that you can
deduce each from the other?

It's part of the basic underlying theory of english semantics, if you
like.

If we have models where this equivalence fails, like the one you mention
which has Lion but no lion instances, then our models are failing to
model this basic underlying theory.

It's in that sense that I'd consider them deficient.

> [snip stages explanation]
> > Since there's no new object like a kind involved, there's no need for
> > any new axioms which acceptable models must satisfy.
>=20
> The object analogous to the kind is none other than John himself. The
> stages of John, dispersed along the time dimension, are analogous to
> the manifestations of the kind, dispersed througout space.
>=20
> > If we made "sometimes wise" into a single predicate "sometimes-wise",
> > then we would want to make it an axiom that it agrees with "sometimes
> > wise"; that's vaguely analogous to the case of kinds. Is that the kind
> > of thing you mean?
>=20
> Kind of. I'm comparing a predicate that may apply to some of the
> time-stages of John but not necessarily to all, with a predicate that
> may apply to some of the space-manifestations of a kind, but not
> necessarily to all.

OK, thanks, I see the analogy now.

So in response to your original remark

> >> (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.

: yes, were we to have a setup like the one you sketch above, then
just as with kinds, a model in which "John sat there" is true had better
have an actual John-stage which actually sits there.

The only reason that I wasn't raising this objection was because
I wasn't assuming a setup with stages.

Unless you really think it's necessary, I'd prefer to avoid getting into
the details of handling space and time for now. But briefly: I'm
currently thinking we should handle neither with the stage approach, and
rather both with the worlds approach (so a "world" would actually be
a co-ordinate (possible world, time, space)). An argument for another
day, perhaps!

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.