Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:42586) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RFGNI-0004tc-P8; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:23:03 -0700 Received: by yws29 with SMTP id 29sf1792882yws.16 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:46 -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; bh=ZSYJlGcO8mINGhqP5bwR4DXuHw3uw/7An2alA2VfcUo=; b=14iEFogjrK2jkJUF52yRg+UTEarzl+d2hn0mHhzSdqDzgZ5SJn8WD8u9Lng8ndsKav y+PyurDDUY5/wXZPLh0raGbnwjdkk2ctQjoQSZOjduepSRd5yo23C/odMEFSSg1kccrH OizPc+ZyckwbaGs+7em72TIV1QgtjtL0V/w/M= Received: by 10.151.110.11 with SMTP id n11mr1492131ybm.11.1318731763667; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.205.29 with SMTP id h29ls18368997anq.4.gmail; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.239.15 with SMTP id m15mr3471640anh.31.1318731762803; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.239.15 with SMTP id m15mr3471639anh.31.1318731762782; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm18-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm18-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.236.23]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id i11si3484660anp.0.2011.10.15.19.22.42; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.23 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.23; Received: from [66.94.237.200] by nm18.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Oct 2011 02:22:42 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.100] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Oct 2011 02:22:42 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1005.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 16 Oct 2011 02:22:42 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 483184.20402.bm@omp1005.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 82925 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Oct 2011 02:22:42 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 4wx6yGEVM1mACaMxoqYNyyecCfK2dG3dr1wPRZcFa0qmJr1 Z5UeWBavYU_3Dudw3ZZPd2TZQiu.fb69E.a.5uE9DiAMf.ZqoiwwCVKxvme8 O_6NdhFka_X2wk_6zzdNi38pcpupdd1_JEIYO_KOibR6pLkKj6tAu.nUJjTR sfanYN7HYeG5iMydwQI2BzDNhu9YPuig.7Zgt.Fj0fPTUvjgTV0sCgv3cYzY IXLBpefKWB_E5okU95j9PEv0xzByCtSEV1aQSo.jIayWBiNu9UlYaUOI_i2P RA4vZmW5n9kUxC7l3tJORH0aQLT5fgN6zNaDGwe4VWEmHrN57kL.a2Z0p1iv dtl1N3syu4m71wthTM1WrVIMRzz12ul0CegPJtu5x2T1g3U0BsVGr1vqkAb3 uMO2odolC.a5Ru4iqthWyaXsc207cWChSyTsk9.rGmm.RPkHzJ.75X8yyutL OdhmrfF9aRDJ9Lg-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:42 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.114.317681 References: <1318202744.44997.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales> <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com> <20111014225934.GC3111@gonzales> <2DDB79AE-DB65-4DC1-B3AC-82CE17CF8E60@yahoo.com> <20111015234501.GI3779@gonzales> Message-ID: <1318731762.53019.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:22:42 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <20111015234501.GI3779@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 66.94.236.23 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: 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 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Lord, I hope they are not the same as you and xorxes are talking about, explanation of which has escaped this discussion for a couple of decades it seems. I am not sure about the details of how to do "I like lions" in detail, but I suppose it is rather like "Lions eat gazelles". In any case, it doesn't need anything but lions, modals and ivity (I think, until someone demonstrates otherwise, which none of this discussion has done). The simplest Lojban would be {mi nelci lo cinfa} and that would usually get by, but the final semantic/pragmatic spelling it out would take a bit. As for the ambiguity of conjunctive, disjunctiive and collective. we live with it all the time, even in Lojban. I don't think we should but I can't convince anyone to require the distinction -- and xorxes. at least seems to insist on leaving it out whenever possible. The issue in this case is just the problem in beginning logic of formalizing sentences and that is usually resolved by adjudicating scope disputes. Since we don't have quantifiers here, we have to work by other means. ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, October 15, 2011 6:45:01 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable * Friday, 2011-10-14 at 21:04 -0400 - John E. Clifford : > Another ahah moment. This talk of donkey sentences (which I have to > say I never quite saw the problem with, since the cases where "a" was > universal always seemed to me to fall into a small set of types -- but > I never pursued that much), called to mind Hans Kamp's discourse > analysis and the floating referents and that dodge around quantifiers, > which seems a bit like your short domain particulars. They simply > arise and then are left behind or are identified with something > already in the pot. The trouble comes when we shift back into FOL and > something has to be done with them -- that is we have the problem of > reconciling the speaker's representation with the hearer's through the > medium of the language used. While the speaker has no problem rolling > all these objects -- old ones, deictic ones, indifferent ones and > particularized variables -- into gaps, the hearer does not sort them > out again with e same ease. > As for kinds, I still don't see a reason to change my view that kinds > are just maximal bunches How does that deal with "I like lions"? If it doesn't, as I think it doesn't, then these are not the same kinds of kinds which xorxes and and are talking about. > and that the various descents to individuals > are dealt with by various ways predicates may be predicated of such > bunches. In the raw {no ku lo cinfo cu zvati le mi purdi}, it seems > clear that "in" is predicated of a bunch of lions conjunctively or > disjunctively, though collectively would make sense in special cases. > So you end up with either "Some of the lions aren't in my garden" or > "None of the lions are in my garden". And does your approach (which I still don't really understand, I'm afraid, and which I would anyway find very hard to consider acceptable if it really involves ambiguity between disjunctive and conjunctive predication) allow you to disambiguate to the first of these two? (not just with {su'o cinfo na ku zvati lo mi purdi}, which omits the useful contextual specificity of "some of the lions") Martin -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.