Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:37447)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDj8u30BBoEGTJ5vA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RFbFV-0005vJ-8A; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:21 -0700
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24sf1379wyg.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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;
        bh=cMuiDoo8kohtDOZi6dPb9pD90aJcsfa3xjhvuJLp7sk=;
        b=F1K8DKYjr26xa/xanFMX8De9crnLE9Y4JlGzhPO5LfB5ymnr+VgHPNtgzHaXdNmXHO
         /R1sUAsQxl8TcxhQv2SSfiALtn+1WtGswX+g95BjEvWP3QHtrVmt0fN7J+RB39aSoWWy
         SwNkl38TAJ3yyN/dAE4F5VsnDXWm+pWTP0zwM=
Received: by 10.216.140.141 with SMTP id e13mr2151784wej.14.1318812003304;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.227.36.211 with SMTP id u19ls4652145wbd.0.gmail; Sun, 16 Oct
 2011 17:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.11.76 with SMTP id s12mr284160wbs.11.1318812002713;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.11.76 with SMTP id s12mr284159wbs.11.1318812002689;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v20si6676369wbn.1.2011.10.16.17.40.02
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.172;
Received: by mail-wy0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 22so97137wyh.3
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.31 with SMTP id q31mr2012806wep.37.1318812002441;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.69] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k26sm28054209wbo.16.2011.10.16.17.40.00
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E9B7960.5070006@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:40:00 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
References: <1318202744.44997.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales> <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com> <20111014225934.GC3111@gonzales> <4E98D899.7080608@gmail.com> <20111015200404.GB3090@gonzales> <4E9A39C9.3010605@gmail.com> <20111016050503.GA21114@gonzales> <20111016171146.GB21114@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111016171146.GB21114@gonzales>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.172 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=and.rosta@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; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Martin Bays, On 16/10/2011 18:11:
> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 01:05 -0400 - Martin Bays<mbays@sdf.org>:
>
>> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 02:56 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> but you'd still be wanting a way of unambiguously showing that
>>> something isn't a kind. There aren't any ready-made candidates for
>>> that, but afaik the lVi gadri are essentially undefined, little used,
>>> and little needed, so you might argue that use for them.
>>
>> That's actually not a bad idea. So {loi cinfo} would be some plurality
>> of actual lions, working like xor{lo} but not allowed to get a kind.
>> Given the plural reference, this isn't even all that far from the
>> historical meaning of lVi.
>>
>> So then I'd understand {lo} as being simply ambiguous between {loi},
>> {lo'e} and {loi ka}; xorxes would complain that that's almost but not
>> quite accurate, because sometimes the {loi ka} version blocks the
>> others; meanwhile, I would be amazed by his ability to dynamically
>> switch kinds in and out of his domains to make quantified statements
>> make sense - but from a distance, happy in my constantish kindless
>> universe.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>
> Some further thoughts on that:
>
> (i) with this definition, {loi} is very close to Chierchia's version of
> the iota operator, which is his explanation of "the": when applied to
> a predicate in a domain, it gives the maximal plurality in the domain
> which satisfies the predicate if there is a unique such (as there is
> with a distributive predicate like a noun). For this to coexist with
> normal quantification, the domain should be some glorked subdomain of
> the full domain.

Why some glorked subdomain, rather than just the full domain?

> So maybe {loi} should actually be defined like that. {loi cinfo} means
> precisely the same thing as "the lions".

I think "the lions" would mean {lei cinfo}, actually, but that's a point about English, and doesn't contradict your underlying point.

> (ii) Even without this subtle modification of {loi}, I was wrong to
> suggest that {lo} is (essentially) ambiguous just between {loi}, {lo'e}
> and {loi ka} - because the existential resolution of kinds doesn't agree
> with {loi}, as the quantifier should get tightest scope. Rather,
> a fourth item should be added to the list: {pi za'u} (if {pi za'u} is
> our plural existential quantifier, which I think it reasonably could be
> (even though it only really makes good intuitive sense when the domain
> is downwards-closed), such that {pi za'u broda cu brode} means "for some
> plurality X such that broda(X), brode(X)") - where this has to be
> substituted in for the {lo} after all exportation to the prenex.
>
> e.g. {lo cinfo cu zvati ro mi purdi}
>      ->  {ro da poi purdi zi'e pe mi zo'u pi za'u cinfo cu zvati da}
>      == FA x:(purdi(x)/\mine(x)) EX X:cinfo(X). zvati(X,x)
> 	(using capital letters for plural variables)
> (in this case {pi za'u} could be replaced by
> the singular existential {su'o} with no change in meaning, but that
> isn't always true)
>
> Maybe it should be {pi za'u loi broda} instead, which is closer to the
> 'C' approach I was trying for existential cases of unfilled variables;
> I'm not sure.

This is too complicated for me to grasp at first reading, and unfortunately I can't afford the time necessary to grasp it.

--And.

-- 
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.