Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:53459)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCslu70BBoEOGdliQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RFcQx-0006AT-Bh; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:56:13 -0700
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf4447346bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:55:59 -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=KGKd4vmOo4Dtd2l+B57VKGrL7pKIe+nXSTP6tQJgIso=;
        b=er/NUcsqJitQV1oeu7H0kN2E5mu17HdtHTyxQEZ8f4cZ6CZvonz+oEzBMrc8sipwQB
         npwWz0c7o0NvQ6k/yZsiVtc48LSRir/hVlR77eSzTnOr+POxQPs04dlMWEwu22W9O8KW
         5xQbaMg3+Ee56YYBgfrMw5anV0dDQSbqy2z5c=
Received: by 10.223.75.153 with SMTP id y25mr2465215faj.6.1318816556847;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.134.87 with SMTP id i23ls4394383bkt.2.gmail; Sun, 16 Oct
 2011 18:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.144.135 with SMTP id z7mr392382bku.1.1318816555000;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.144.135 with SMTP id z7mr392381bku.1.1318816554984;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f54.google.com (mail-bw0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a16si2762776bku.3.2011.10.16.18.55.54
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.54;
Received: by mail-bw0-f54.google.com with SMTP id zu17so3427688bkb.13
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.17.11 with SMTP id q11mr21289151faa.13.1318816554776; Sun,
 16 Oct 2011 18:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.39.35 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 18:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E9B80AF.30901@gmail.com>
References: <1318202744.44997.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales>
	<4E981179.1030805@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2fe4f+VVy3DkRV9Xa+K2ZyST-ncTC3_7XdcXgfFxyG49w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E9A3F33.5050609@gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2c8+gcN7aQTFzmB_hi9X5k5eboWtvo7GPop3F7uA_VDUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E9B80AF.30901@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:55:54 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fxarEbvmAqF06n=XubmtVDefbA77PQY0SvhiEOQTua_g@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 209.85.214.54 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 Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:11 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 17/10/2011 01:31:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com> =A0wrot=
e:
>>>
>>> The commonest case where covert donkey sentences occur is with
>>> conditionals:
>>> "If you give me money, I'll spend it on drugs" =3D "Every possible
>>> circumstance in which there is money that you give me is a circumstance
>>> in
>>> which there is money that you give me and I spend on drugs". I don't
>>> think
>>> your solution works for that. Applying your solution gives (I think)
>>> "Every
>>> circumstance is such that in it I spend all money that you give me",
>>> which
>>> has the wrong meaning. Crucially, the conditionals rely on restricted
>>> quantification (over circumstances in which such and such is the case).
>>
>> Why does it have the wrong meaning? Is it still wrong if you use "any"
>> instead of "all"?
>
> In apprehending underlying forms, we need to get rid of "any", since it i=
s
> an English reflection of a quantifier interacting with a conditional.

I take "any" here to be the same as "all", except it is plain that it
has no existential import. I still don't see what problem you see in
"Every circumstance is such that in it, for all money, if you give it
to me I spend it on drugs" or any of its variants.

> But let's change "money" to "five quid": "Every circumstance is such that=
 in
> it I spend five quid that you give me". Wrong, obviously.

"Every circumstance is such that in it I spend *every* five quid that
you give me".

>=A0Or try "If you
> tell me your name, I'll murmur it".

I don't see that as a donkey sentence, since it doesn't even have quantifie=
rs.

>> I think my solution would give: "For any money, if
>> you give it to me, I'll spend it on drugs" or "I'll spend on drugs any
>> money you give me".
>
> Underlying "if" and conditionals is a logical form that is either
> repretitious, "Every possible circumstance in which there is money that y=
ou
> give me is a circumstance in which there is money that you give me and I
> spend on drugs", or else a donkey sentence, "Every possible circumstance =
in
> which there is money that you give me is a circumstance in which I spend =
it
> on drugs". So your challenge is to reformulate that, without using "if" o=
r
> "any", but without the repetition (of "there is money that you give me").

I don't get why that is the challenge. In the original donkey
sentence, I did use "any" in replacement of the problematic "some":
You accepted "all farmers beat any donkey they own".


>> I think the issue with donkey sentences is not so much reformulating
>> them in terms of ordinary first order logic, which can be done by
>> replacing the short scope existential by a wide scope universal. The
>> problematic issue is explaining what's going on, since this conversion
>> is not licensed by any rules of logic.
>
> I see what you're saying, but I think we have different understandings of
> the quintessence of donkey-sentencehood.

For me it's that they have a pronoun whose antecedent is a bound
variable, but the pronoun is outside the scope of the quantifier
binding the variable... and yet they make sense.

> I take it to be when you have
> quantification within a restriction on a variable, in "for every X such t=
hat
> there is a Y such that F(X,Y), there is a Y such that F(X,Y) and G(X,Y)",

That's in non-donkey form.

> which might be Englished as the less repetitious donkey-sentence "for eve=
ry
> X such that there is a Y such that F(X,Y), G(X,Y)".

Which is a donkey sentence, because the Y in G(X,Y) is outside the
scope of "there is a Y such that", so it should not be interpretable
in standard first order logic.

> I see that as the quintessence of donkey-sentencehood not because that is
> how it is standardly seen in linguistics, but rather because that is the
> main problem they present for a logical language.

The non-repetitious form of your sentence is:

"for every Y and for every X such that F(X,Y), G(X,Y)".

But the challenge is to explain why the apparently nonsensical form
has this sensical sense.

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.