Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:37146) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RByMW-0007g6-4D; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:35 -0700 Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32sf2708990pzk.16 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:22 -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=P9fwxsBSeBHTa6QxmtCSWdx7YBzDRftDr5dVX8w/qLs=; b=DLcTRB21C5hFTFOxKboBf7nMlBhGiuja8LTQSSnpLISS1gdwhV75pfO9UcCMCsToXs wEicpO0LE5mIV9GQISZNnYEpGRTAeWfnKpObQnKJCvaKvmK7eqqH50Tgiets83UDh3eX r0mG08Q8TRVmfxfuIkCK/jxWc7flPrRPrtVH8= Received: by 10.68.26.42 with SMTP id i10mr682416pbg.11.1317947539556; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:19 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.68.38.201 with SMTP id i9ls6116936pbk.3.gmail; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.46.193 with SMTP id x1mr7134171pbm.7.1317947538759; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.46.193 with SMTP id x1mr7134170pbm.7.1317947538744; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j4si8463958pbi.2.2011.10.06.17.32.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:32:18 -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 (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p970WImr029969 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 00:32:18 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1RByML-0000ep-Sw for lojban@googlegroups.com; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:32:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 20:32:17 -0400 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Message-ID: <20111007003217.GD8826@gonzales> References: <20110914232007.GC6492@gonzales> <1316055853.22283.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110916000632.GD7274@gonzales> <1317917098.8073.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1317924653.89892.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111006193514.GC8826@gonzales> <3166A594-07BE-4D24-AA0F-C56D07C223A5@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="n2Pv11Ogg/Ox8ay5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3166A594-07BE-4D24-AA0F-C56D07C223A5@yahoo.com> X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: cnemu 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --n2Pv11Ogg/Ox8ay5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Thursday, 2011-10-06 at 17:21 -0400 - John E. Clifford : > Which is why I added "or would have I intended if he had thought of > it". So you are saying he might have intended a variable. Ah, I was reading your "something" in "something I have in mind (or would have, if I thought about it)" as being an ordinary something (or somethings, presumably), i.e. just some element (possibly plural) of the universe. Having it be a variable is roughly right, yes. This can't be dealt with at a textual level - simply substituting {da xi ci ze} for {zo'e} - because {zo'e ro da broda} should be the same as {ro da zo'u zo'e da broda}. Hence the "close-scoping (plural) existential with glorked domain" suggestion made in this thread. Do you still think that suggestion is wrong/bad in some way? > I personally think it is {zi'o}, but that probably has problems > too--though I can't think of one. My main problem with that is just the icky ambiguity it would introduce. In principle, {zi'o klama} is an entirely new 4-place predicate, whose semantics are related to those of {klama} but not in any very predictable way. So if an omitted place can be {zi'o}, understanding the possible meanings of any expression would, in principle, involve understanding many such zi'o-derived selbri. Martin > On Oct 6, 2011, at 15:35, Martin Bays wrote: >=20 > > * Thursday, 2011-10-06 at 11:10 -0700 - John E Clifford : > >> Well, I am not sure just what the all the complications that MB and > >> xorxes have stirred up are, but, so far as I can follow it, the > >> position seems to be that {zo'e} stands for something I have in mind > >> (or would have, if I thought about it). It is a constant (a different > >> one at each occurrence -- an ongoing problem in Lojban), not > >> a variable and not under any quantifier. Then {lo broda} is that with > >> the additional information that the something is in some way, broda. > >> So, it can refer to anything from a single broda to all brodas, past, > >> present, future, and possible but not actualized. This referent can > >> then be said to have a further property in a variety of ways, mainly > >> to be grokked from context, since the ways to specify them are not ywr > >> well-established. My understanding is that MB disagrees with this > >> specification of {zo'e} and xorxes with the extrapolation to the > >> referent, but juast why is hard to see. > >=20 > > Because it doesn't seem to explain the behaviour of {zo'e} with respect > > to negation and quantifiers - at least if we accept that an unfilled > > place is implicitly filled with a {zo'e}, and if we don't use kinds. > >=20 > > To dig out the old example, in > > A: xu do pu klama lo zarci > > B: mi na klama > > , and assuming that there's only one market in question, B probably > > intends to refer to that market by the implicit {zo'e} in {klama}'s x2. > > But B is unlikely to mean only to mean that for some specific route, > > B didn't go to the market by that route. B probably means that B didn't > > go to the market via *any* route, or means of transport. > >=20 > > Your explanation of {zo'e} seems not to deal with that. --n2Pv11Ogg/Ox8ay5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6OSJEACgkQULC7OLX7LNYSSQCgwPXphaPKBlVenV9n6mzvcgen qLcAoMLV6PX63MgBKdimnUwOVvPdc20t =yzTf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --n2Pv11Ogg/Ox8ay5--