: >>>>>> 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 differe= nt >>>>>> one at each occurrence -- an ongoing problem in Lojban), not >>>>>> a variable and not under any quantifier. Then {lo broda} is that wi= th >>>>>> 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 y= wr >>>>>> 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 respe= ct >>>>> 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 x= 2. >>>>> 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. --=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. --Apple-Mail-1-567314526 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 9, 2011, at 0:27, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Saturday, 2011-10-08 at 19:56 -0400 - John E. Clifford &l= t;kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

Lying on abed of pa= in, I have been thinking about this a bit and want
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">to revise my position somewhat.

Sorry to hear about the circumstan= ces; I trust {zo'e} issues distract
rather than contribute<= /span>

Very nicely, thanks

About {zi'o}, t= here are two possible ways of reading, say, {zi'o

klama}. One as a relation among places, paths= and modes of

transp= ortation that hold of a quartet of such just in case some
traveler take the path from the secon= d place to the first along the
path using the transportation mode. The second is much the same = except
that the trav= eller does not enter in, we just have a relation among
the quartets with no further indication = of why they are in that
relation. The second view, while formally possible, is surely not=
what is intended; w= hy would we use {klama} if the things related were
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">never part of a trip? But, as a result= , {zi'o} becomes equivalent to
your friend, the short-scope particular quantifier.

That may be the case with {klama}, but e.= g. in {zi'o kancu}, the
intention really is that no counter= need be involved; similarly with
{zi'o darlu}. Of course y= ou could say that there are *potential*
counters and arguer= s... but that's still different from the likely
meaning of = e.g. {zo'e darlu ko'a ko'e}.

Ni= ce one! Yes, {zi'o kancu b c d} does make a sort of sense somewhat independ= ent of the full form. But it falls short of saying that b actually is= c ds, since the original allows for miscounts. Or maybe it is the co= rrect count even if no one actually makes it, in which case it does become = a new relation altogether. The case of {darlu} is trickier: it become= s a relation between two position, apparently that they could be taken as o= pposing even if no one tried to make the case. Anyhow, {zi'o} doesn't= become just a variable. So drop that thought.

So, I drop = that suggestion. Which brings us back to {zo'e} and
unfilled places. I take it as a= given that {zo'e} is a constant ( at
each use -- not an ideal situation)and never a variable. = The
appearance= that it is sometimes a variable comes from the fact that
unfilled places clearly are variables= sometimes, combined with the
claim that every unfilled space is a covert occurrence of {zo'e}.=
This last now seems= to me to just be flat wrong, as the examples
bandied about here seem clearly to prove.<= br>

So by an unfilled place being a vari= able, you mean acting as I was
suggesting {zo'e} does?

Maybe. I am still not clear j= ust exactly what you intend ( see problem later). Minimally, I mean i= t behaves like a particularly quantified variable under negation an around = other quantifiers.

=
On the other hand, some
unfilled spaces are cl= early covert {zo'e} or some constant, at least.
The constant seems to be subsumable under the "= thing I have in mind"

reading, whether obvious anaphora, obvious deixis, or less obvious=

personal whim (cf. the def= initions of descriptors). This leaves

a totally unacceptable situation, at least for a lo= gical language,

whos= e transformations are supposed to be on the surface: an unfilled
=

space is four ways ambiguous.<= /span>

Well... absorbing anaphora an= d deixis into the "things I have in mind"
category seems ha= rmless.

Maybe, but since the language is set to be as precise as possible in= these area, it does seem to be a falling away from standards.

It seems t= he only logically sensible
out is to allow unfilled spaces only for variables (the general case= )
and require someth= ing more specific for the rest,preferably the
appropriate pronouns in those case and {zo'e} on = the last, though

I s= uppose that in most cases {zo'e} could do for all three.

But unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean b= y variables, the other
three cases (which are arguably real= ly just one case) are just special
cases of the variable ca= se - namely, where the glorked domain of the
existential qu= antification is a singleton (whose single element might be
= a plurality, of course).

Here is the problem, then. In standard semantics, the universe or do= main of discourse is a given and all variables range over the items in that= domain. There is no case of a special domain to be used for just one= variable, separate from the domain that applies to all the others (there a= re complications here but none that bear on this point). I suppose so= me mechanism could be worked out to do something like this, but it seems a = lot of work for no apparent gain.

<= span>So I'm understanding you as having {zo'e} force the domain to be
a singleton, but otherwise to work like an unfilled place=

No. Domains don't change like that. &= nbsp;{zo'e} is simply a constant. Is this strange ad hoc domain what = you mean by "close-scope"? Rather than its effect in the structure of= the sentence?

It seems reasonable to want a word for that. Maybe it should be {zo'e},=
I'm not sure. If it were, we'd need to find another word w= ith the
meaning of an unfilled place, say {zo'e'e} - if onl= y because {lo broda}
would then be {zo'e'e noi broda} rathe= r than {zo'e noi broda} (to
whatever extent that equivalenc= e ever works).

S= o, back to the question case: the appropriate negative responses to<= br>
the question { xu do klama = le zarci} are {na}(or should that
be{naku}?), {na go'i}, {mi na klama zy} ( or some more offi= cial
pronoun), and t= he basic {mi na klama le zarci}, with {mi na klama
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">zo'e} as a marginal possibility.
<= /blockquote>
And {mi na klama} as a definite possibil= ity, yes?

I would say, no, beca= use that would have me going nowhere, not merely not to the store.

On Oct= 6, 2011, at 20:32, Martin Bays <mbays@= sdf.org> wrote:

* Thursday, 2011-10-06 at 17:21 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

Which is why I adde= d "or would have I intended if he had thought of
=
it". So you are saying he might have intend= ed a variable.

Ah, I wa= s reading your "something" in "something I have in mind (or
would have, if I thought about it)" as being an ordinary something (or<= /span>
somethings, presumably), i.e. just some element (possibl= y plural) of thee.
universe.
=
Having it be a variable is roughly right, yes. This can't be d= ealt with
at a textual level - simply substituting {da x= i 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 "c= lose-scoping (plural) existential with glorked
domain" s= uggestion made in this thread.

<= /blockquote>
Do yo= u 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 amb= iguity 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
predicta= ble 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 <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

=
* Thursday, 2011-10-06 at 1= 1:10 -0700 - John E Clifford <ka= li9putra@yahoo.com>:
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 s= omething 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 q= uantifier. Then {lo broda} is that with
=
the additional information that the somethi= ng 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 disagre= es with this
=
s= pecification of {zo'e} and xorxes with the extrapolation to the
<= /blockquote>
referent, but juast why i= s hard to see.

<= /blockquote>
Be= cause 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.

=
T= o dig out the old example, in
A: xu do pu klama lo za= rci
B: mi na klama

, and assumi= ng 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.<= /span>

But B is unlikely to mean only to mean that for some = specific route,

B didn't go to the market by that rou= te. B probably means that B didn't
<= blockquote type=3D"cite">
go to the market v= ia *any* route, or means of transport.
=

=
Your explanation of {zo'e} seems not to deal with that.
=

--
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.
--Apple-Mail-1-567314526--