Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:39999)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDRxef0BBoEwnEMEQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RFAAk-0002nd-Fu; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:37 -0700
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf3412694bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:22 -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=xQQCNZFKZTlQNrJKjMiQTKV1t9bufnsf/FWbwqzJXa8=;
        b=afM4OlKFm9OFLLDQlIwTEAs4dbc+5gx8hDrUp2v/nVcJ/GKGg57llTZYGKBVBVT95A
         L+1hM5nDmO7GXrKp3kG8OA+ldpUMiqgNDxMI/rnpXSF5Lf/oErGHuGOtLvxlShOqDG0z
         BY7U2I0ZLDPMFiJqKVDEk51tdvYUueliyFysU=
Received: by 10.223.63.10 with SMTP id z10mr1652695fah.11.1318707921183;
        Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.240.17 with SMTP id ky17ls628858bkb.3.gmail; Sat, 15 Oct
 2011 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.140.67 with SMTP id h3mr1498950bku.3.1318707920113;
        Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.140.67 with SMTP id h3mr1498949bku.3.1318707920095;
        Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com (mail-bw0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a16si2066605bku.3.2011.10.15.12.45.20
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.49;
Received: by bkbc12 with SMTP id c12so6066080bkb.22
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.85.139 with SMTP id o11mr12755066fal.0.1318707919858; Sat,
 15 Oct 2011 12:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.39.35 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20111015185726.GC3779@gonzales>
References: <1318202744.44997.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales>
	<4E981179.1030805@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2fe4f+VVy3DkRV9Xa+K2ZyST-ncTC3_7XdcXgfFxyG49w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111015155009.GA5916@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2eT3xjSf7-aBuWGeMj2ck+pGAU8ooXk+xa4eUiVypBW4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111015185726.GC3779@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:45:19 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eeraqkbBT20+vuRoL53TtcuT6VMaNFE=iFa23Ck=5zRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
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 209.85.214.49 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: <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: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 15:08 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> > * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 12:16 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@g=
mail.com>:
>> >
>> >> >> {ro te cange poi ponse lo xasli cu darxi ri}
>> >
>> >> I would say the Lojban is meaningful and (roughly) equivalent to
>> >> "every farmer who is a donkey-owner is a donkey-beater".
>> >
>> > i.e. equivalent to {ro te cange poi ponse lo xasli cu darxi lo xasli}?
>>
>> Not exactly, because we have no guarantee that the first "lo xasli"
>> and the second "lo xasli" will always have the same referent.
>
> Ah, of course, you have the first {lo xasli} having the same referent
> for all farmers, namely the kind 'donkeys'. Yes? And then the {ri} has
> this kind as its referent,

Right.

> and then you declare that kinds in x2 of
> ponse and darxi resolve existentially,

I'm not sure I do declare that. Do you declare that any individual in
the x2 of ponse and darxi resolves existentially? i.e. if I hit
someone, do I hit some stage of them, or do I hit all of their stages?
Or are stages not necessarily relevant? If you do declare existential
resolution for individuals, then I might be willing to declare it for
kinds as well.

> and context ensures that for
> a given farmer the glorked domain of the existential quantification in
> the darxi part is the set of donkeys that farmer owns.

"May suggest" rather than "ensure", assuming this existential
resolution is at all required.

> Is that accurate?

With qualifications, yes.

> Actually, can I take the opportunity to ask a crucial question I don't
> think I yet directly have: is the use of kinds necessary for you to get
> the forall-exists meaning of {ro te cange cu ponse lo xasli},

But it is not me who gets that meaning. It is you who insists that
that's the meaning. For me there is no existential quantification
present. The statement with existential quantification is a different,
more fine grained one.

> Ah. Maybe you don't handle {noi} on {lo} as I expected. I was assuming:
> {lo xasli noi da darxi}
> =A0 =A0=3D=3D {zo'e noi xasli zi'e noi da darxi}
> =A0 =A0=3D=3D {zo'e noi xasli gi'e se darxi da}
> =A0 =A0~=3D {lo xasli je se darxi be da}
>
> such that you can't have a referent constant with respect to {da}, and
> hence the {ri} (being outside of the scope of {da}) doesn't have any
> referent.

Those transformations seem fine in themselves. The only question is
whether the antecedent of "ri" is the referring expression "lo xasli"
or the non-referring expression (because of the unbound variable) "lo
xasli noi da darxi". If you take the non-referring expression as the
antecedent of "ri", you can't use "ri"  outside the scope of the
quantifier that binds "da".

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.