Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:60619)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDlte70BBoEW7ZcAw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RFdTr-0006XV-A3; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:23 -0700
Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4sf4751470gyh.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:04 -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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=utLqhGY66olXEOVFj5A4+HFlLZt/hEvwB/DbDURJLIs=;
        b=L0rTI+RpJ8o69uisLsoWXoDpfBe2FWZqh6M15RlUg9TJSoPOlpU6OzB9i7nA4RKDgY
         3zJBQLa0OHua7nNTOCaAtVYqU7+ZyL6vScG1+fzt74N7oCMO0AdjoxjTIZxttEjb/FfS
         bDfZf7BJUrbhgF7wvC4IDxlknniBIzNKByz6c=
Received: by 10.147.102.31 with SMTP id e31mr257711yam.23.1318820581887;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.100.56.20 with SMTP id e20ls21695031ana.5.gmail; Sun, 16 Oct
 2011 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.21.5 with SMTP id y5mr3938774ani.14.1318820581261;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.101.21.5 with SMTP id y5mr3938773ani.14.1318820581243;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm25-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm25-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.236.191])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id u7si5160038ano.3.2011.10.16.20.03.01;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.191 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.191;
Received: from [66.94.237.194] by nm25.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Oct 2011 03:03:00 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.97] by tm5.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Oct 2011 03:03:00 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1002.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Oct 2011 03:03:00 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 921916.90948.bm@omp1002.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 33580 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Oct 2011 03:03:00 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: nmPHshUVM1m2eG7MDusdkbZuj2GAzjtTgvQ7stm5U5Wg7h9
 tbmrmOIdPQBK4jLbQWHhRRo6PDpdBPtS3VwnX58h0CdxcC1sl53p6sp3N1Sd
 GgFesTRSmeGTW41mjUjDufduBkQFeod.qn5U.dfesFG4eb3W43SGLy5zEfy8
 XvcPbqjvBWHA7mc5tv7CyRDApuXC_MYK3fP.Qi0lz4InTa_UiOHF3284FXv4
 L_Lv84buU7UZL48ZzM2eSybiTX5LHvDuB5YFLUDKXMnVJJDqz4bVSyXcPWiG
 MbWLwq1D_7uCeICBfOxlFeN40w6b7ySA1ofBm7S7LYQby4_Ii2xpraOIdJQ1
 F0RgeMkepbC469EBbpwsYRY3qi.n1rMPHbZFoZ7Wpf2Wfd5LKvz_b714OuqG
 ZksPcLefW2lBb4VLwkem01ItNlju78w8Snfdzngfg7yvTlURaohKxYmmwZA6
 L_GkplgBQbe4jz4i6CaG41jYwcj2AEo47_taBZSUm6Jnpzc7oBb5npRBqI_U
 LaMjDRlbHcpZsdnGhb4Ti1qM-
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:00 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> <CAO7tK2fe4f+VVy3DkRV9Xa+K2ZyST-ncTC3_7XdcXgfFxyG49w@mail.gmail.com> <4E9A3F33.5050609@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2c8+gcN7aQTFzmB_hi9X5k5eboWtvo7GPop3F7uA_VDUg@mail.gmail.com> <4E9B80AF.30901@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1318820580.21049.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <4E9B80AF.30901@gmail.com>
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 66.94.236.191
 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: <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: /

I agree that "any" is out; but why "if", the fundamental (in some psycholog=
ical=20
sense, at least) logical connective?  If your aim is to get back to a sente=
nce=20
that is as puzzling as the original, why would you?  but any clear sentence=
 is=20
going to use either "if" and universal quantifiers or some dubious derivati=
ve of=20
that.  I tend to be a little skeptical of the Nyayaika trick of getting rid=
 of=20
conditionals by moving to circumstances (I now see where they come from).  =
That=20
makes sense for some kinds of conditionals, but there need be nothing speci=
al in=20
this case.




----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 8:11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural=
=20
variable

Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 17/10/2011 01:31:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> The commonest case where covert donkey sentences occur is with condition=
als:
>> "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 thi=
nk
>> your solution works for that. Applying your solution gives (I think) "Ev=
ery
>> circumstance is such that in it I spend all money that you give me", whi=
ch
>> 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 is =
an=20
English reflection of a quantifier interacting with a conditional.

But let's change "money" to "five quid": "Every circumstance is such that i=
n it=20
I spend five quid that you give me". Wrong, obviously.  Or try "If you tell=
 me=20
your name, I'll murmur it".

>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 repretiti=
ous,=20
"Every possible circumstance in which there is money that you give me is a=
=20
circumstance in which there is money that you give me and I spend on drugs"=
, or=20
else a donkey sentence, "Every possible circumstance in which there is mone=
y=20
that you give me is a circumstance in which I spend it on drugs". So your=
=20
challenge is to reformulate that, without using "if" or "any", but without =
the=20
repetition (of "there is money that you give me").

>> So well done with the reformulation of the classic donkey sentence, but =
now
>> turn your ingenuity to "Every possible circumstance in which there is mo=
ney
>> that you give me is a circumstance in which there is money that you give=
 me
>> and I spend on drugs".
>
> 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 t=
he=20
quintessence of donkey-sentencehood. I take it to be when you have=20
quantification within a restriction on a variable, in "for every X such tha=
t=20
there is a Y such that F(X,Y), there is a Y such that F(X,Y) and G(X,Y)", w=
hich=20
might be Englished as the less repetitious donkey-sentence "for every X suc=
h=20
that there is a Y such that F(X,Y), G(X,Y)".

I see that as the quintessence of donkey-sentencehood not because that is h=
ow it=20
is standardly seen in linguistics, but rather because that is the main prob=
lem=20
they present for a logical language.

--And.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
=20
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at=20
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--=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.