Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:49025)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDmye70BBoE9TaEmQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RFe99-0006i8-52; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:45:58 -0700
Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf2561490pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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;
        bh=s2DqfuavajF5JkHJ682Sgq6QKmtczmiWtMjkuqhamvM=;
        b=YH+ZQGYms5P2xtXS7gZ2NK0eBHbcpkpMKK9nz/k90Mg3IJg4Ts8SQD2IaYr0d8rVyj
         Pv6/JBiNfO7Mci9ffydvI350Mh3dSbeDta8P9xwgn8wyrYVa86NgepeP6zLLZ7oJrOLI
         qYYoTpcUOMDwRJBR4dD8zVtnHi5+XwxtmT3LY=
Received: by 10.68.34.68 with SMTP id x4mr3759656pbi.9.1318823142260;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.29.130 with SMTP id k2ls17455656pbh.1.gmail; Sun, 16 Oct
 2011 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.11.199 with SMTP id s7mr23733688pbb.5.1318823141655;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.11.199 with SMTP id s7mr23733687pbb.5.1318823141641;
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lf12si18058345pbb.2.2011.10.16.20.45.41
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9H3jew6013337
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:45:41 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RFe8y-0000SS-Ms
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:45:40 -0400
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:45:40 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Message-ID: <20111017034540.GH21114@gonzales>
References: <20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales>
 <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com>
 <20111014225934.GC3111@gonzales>
 <4E98D899.7080608@gmail.com>
 <20111015200404.GB3090@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2d212cYedWPHvVjz2BsDhrfst9GOB+00QSRHGMMaOHQGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111015232957.GH3779@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fA-k46_-YAZyisTqcYGAKRXXK1W_6bHzicypBe6drraw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111017015603.GF21114@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2ej4h_oi5tX46dR9ZizAtOR31tXK5oYsQ8odw4o1qGGwg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wayzTnRSUXKNfBqd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2ej4h_oi5tX46dR9ZizAtOR31tXK5oYsQ8odw4o1qGGwg@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: linsi
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--wayzTnRSUXKNfBqd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 23:14 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co=
m>:

> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:49 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
> >
> >> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >> >> The drawback of that approach is that you cannot combine predicatio=
ns
> >> >> that "resolve" differently.
> >> [...]
> >> > In any case, this drawback seems a rather small one to me.
> >>
> >> It's impotant though. For example, compare:
> >>
> >> (1) ca lo prulamnicte mi tavla su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
> >> "Last night I talked to someone you like."
> >>
> >> (2) ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
> >> "Last night I ate something you like."
> >>
> >> You want to accept (1) but reject (2), even though to me they have the
> >> exact same logical structure.
> >
> > More precisely, I'd give the lojban in (2) the less likely (without
> > context) of the meanings of the english - the one for which a reasonable
> > response would be "you bastard!".
>=20
> But shouldn't "you bastard!" be a response to "last night I ate
> something you liked"? I think the one you call less likely is even
> less likely than you suggest, and the reasonable response would be "I
> most certainly don't anymore".

Yes, true.

> > You, meanwhile, would copy to lojban this ambiguity in the english.
> >
> > (You wouldn't call it an ambiguity, I know; but consider that in english
> > we can (mostly) disambiguate to the obvious option by making it "I ate
> > of something you like" (although this construction is rare in modern
> > english))
>=20
> There are ways to change the level of abstraction in Lojban too,
> usually by being more wordy. The inconvenience is being forced to do
> it even when you don't need to. You are essentially forbidding a
> certain level of abstraction.
>=20
> >> You would need to say something like "ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o
> >> da poi ckaji su'o de poi do nelci ke'a" instead of (2).
> >
> > That's abbreviable to
> > {ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o ckaji be su'o se nelci be do},
> > which isn't all that verbose.
>=20
> But I bet nobody will talk like that.

Most people would bet no-one would talk lojban ;)

But many verbosity problems could be resolved by introducing new
(meanings for) cmavo. e.g. it could be {mi citka su'o lu'ai lo se nelci
be do}, with {lu'ai} meaning "the exemplars/realisations/instances of".
Moreover, I don't see a problem with having {lu'a} have this meaning, in
addition to its "elements of" meaning when applied to sets.

> > Alternatively, how about
> > {ca lo prulamnicte mi ckaji citka su'o se nelci be do}
> > "I exemplar-ate a foodstuff you like" -> "I ate an exemplar of
> > a foodstuff you like" -> "I ate of a foodstuff you like"?
>=20
> Where presumably "ckaji citka" is not a kind of "citka"? i.e. "ko'a
> ckaji citka ko'e" does not entail "ko'a citka ko'e"?

Fair point. I suppose it would have to be a lujvo; eating up lujvo-space
like that might not be such a good idea.

> >> Or consider:
> >>
> >> (3) mi zukte lo se zukte be do
> >> "I'm doing what you are doing."
> >>
> >> You have to say: "mi zukte lo ckaji be lo se ckaji be lo se zukte be d=
o."
> >
> > To copy the kinds approach, yes. It could be abbreviated to
> > {da se ckaji lo se zukte be mi .e do}, of course.
>=20
> I think you will need "da se ckaji lo se zukte be mi be'o .e lo se zukte =
be do"
>=20
> "lo se zukte be mi .e do" is "zo'e noi ke'a se zukte mi .e do", and
> presumably there's no such thing in your universe.

Right again. Make that {da zo'u mi .e do zukte lo ckaji be da}.

With {lu'a} as above, it could be just {lu'a da mi .e do se zukte}
(although then there's even less to indicate the intended value of da).

> > Neither this nor the kinds version really gets across the meaning of the
> > english, though, since there's no indication of the level of generality
> > of the property/kind involved. Maybe something like {mi zukte lo panra
> > be lo se zukte be do} is clearer.
>=20
> In any case, wouldn't you agree this is more than a small drawback?

Yes, I suppose I would. But I still prefer required verbosity to
undisambiguable ambiguity.

Martin

--wayzTnRSUXKNfBqd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk6bpOQACgkQULC7OLX7LNZ+yQCfWq0TXswMM5BlfUITLjTRnxeZ
czcAoOUC2beychUkiAwURVFyKHrL0udc
=x2Hc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wayzTnRSUXKNfBqd--