Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.65;
Message-ID: <1318906003.98760.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:46:43 -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
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, October 17, 2011 5:37:30 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural=
=20
variable

* Monday, 2011-10-17 at 15:25 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.co=
m>:

> No particular predicates involved, though disjunctive is more likely
> with some than others.  That is, there is a mode (for a nonce word)
> that is upward distributive in any case.  Remember, with the right
> set-up {lo re gerku cu citka lo ci nanmu'} only requires one bite.

(I assume you mean {batci}, unless you're referring to the Land of
Giants set-up)

Thanks, I rely on memory way too much for these things.

Agreed. This is something I am happy leaving up to the lexicon.

> {mi nelci lo ka cinfo} doesn't get at any meaning of "I like lions" as
> far as I can see; it's about liking something else, lionness.  Now,
> I suppose that liking lioness might be one factor in liking lions, but
> surely not the whole of it.  I might like their feet or the way they
> taste roasted or ..., none of which are lionness.

Maybe it isn't a very good translation of the english. But I don't see
why {mi nelci lo cinfo} with the kind (in xorxes' sense) 'lions' as the
referent of {lo cinfo} shoud be any different.

Nor do I; I hqave never  -- except for a few periods when he was working ar=
ound=20
to something that seemed to make sense -- been a fan of xorxes' kinds (or a=
ny of=20


the other names the same sort of thing has been called over the years).  As=
=20
usual, I am unsure what exactly he means this time, so I can't say it is wr=
ong,=20
but I certainly won't say it is right.

> Actually, I have no problem with interpreting some occurrences of {lo}
> as kinds (as understand that notion).  But, the nice thing about
> slipping into intensional contexts is that words now stand for their
> intensions, not their extensions.  But, even if they did refer to
> their extensions, they would still be extensions in some idealized
> range of worlds.

Maybe I finally understand what you mean with your "kinds =3D maximal
bunches" idea. Let's see.

I've been implicitly assuming that in {lo broda}, the tense inside the
description is by default copied from outside it. So {mi ca ca'a nelci
lo pavyseljirna} =3D=3D {mi ca ca'a nelci lo ca ca'a pavyseljirna}, which i=
s
false if there are no unicorns.

I suppose the tense (if there is one) is as contextual as everything else a=
bout=20
descriptions.  The same as the bridi surely is a good guess in general, but=
 may=20
be obviously wrong in other circumstances.  For example, in generalities, t=
he=20
tense (if that is the right notion) is probably past, present, future and=
=20
possible.

Now I'm guessing that you want to exploit the fact that no tense is
actually specified in {lo pavyseljirna}, and hence it could very well be
{lo pavyseljirna be ca da bei ca'a de} - "things which are unicorns at
some time in some possible world". Liking that plurality, even if it be
in a situation in which none of its constituents zasti, could indeed
mean something. It could plausibly even mean whatever it is that it
means to "like unicorns".

Well, the use of a description in a primary context means that something=20
satisfying that description is in the domain, so, if I am going to say {mi =
nelci=20


lo pavyseljirna}, I am committed to there being unicorns (not necessarily=
=20
existing ones).  And, of course, things mentioned in secondary places are g=
oing=20
to be in the domains associated with those secondary structures, without ha=
ving=20
any necessary effect on the primary domain.

I note, by the way, that {nelci} has no place for what one likes a thing fo=
r,=20
which explains some of my problem with questions like whether I like lions:=
 for=20
some things yes, for others not so much.  Lacking this information makes it=
 hard=20

to know what to put in the object place.  The [tu'a} approach has the virtu=
e of=20
covering a lot of cases, but not the one that is apparently central to {nel=
ci},=20
eating, since that is very concrete.

Is this what you've been getting at? If so, sorry that I've been too
dense to see it before.

I'm not sure what to make of it as a solution to kinds issues... let me
ponder.

> Of course, we can do without the {tu'a}, but it is
> less plausible, even with lion, let alone unicorns.  How would an
> abstraction involving lionness be closer to liking lions than one
> involving lions?

Because the abstraction in question could be {lo nu citka lo ckaji be lo
ka cinfo ku ku joi lo xamgu ke xunre vanju}...

Even without taking the time to translate this, it is clear that this is go=
ing=20
to have very little to do with liking lions, except in the sense of providi=
ng a=20
recipe for lion ragout, which I might like.  Ahah, maybe this is getting ba=
ck to=20
the issue of what I like lions for and spelling it out in as part of what I=
=20
like.  But, of course, this would work just as well as {lo nu citka lo cinf=
o ku=20
joi lo xamgu ke xunre vanju}  (actually, isn't it white wine with cats?)

Martin

> Sent from my iPad
>=20
> On Oct 17, 2011, at 13:32, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 09:08 -0700 - John E Clifford=20
<kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >=20
> >> Once you have a plurality, you can slice and dice any which way.
> >=20
> > Ah, you just mean that there are predicates like {ce'u nibli ko'a},
> > which is probably "upwards distributive" - true of a plurality iff of
> > some subplurality? That's harmless enough.
> >=20
> >> Well, let's see.  I can like unicorns, even if there are not any (alth=
ough,=20


>in=20
>
> >> Lojban, if I say that in a natural way, I seem to guarantee that there=
 are=20
>some,=20
>
> >> albeit nonexistent), so maybe you are right and this is about properti=
es.  I=20
>
>
>
> >> would be inclined, however, to think it was rather a more general=20
>intensional=20
>
> >> notion, which might amount to a property, but maybe also an event, dep=
ending=20
>
>
>on=20
>
> >> what one likes about them -- even a sensation.
> >=20
> > Yes, {mi nelci lo ka cinfo} is only getting at one of the meanings of "=
I
> > like lions". It could also mean e.g. mi nelci lo ka nu citka lo cinfo.
> >=20
> >> So, I would probably write {mi nelci tu'a lo cinfo} (I am away from my
> >> tables right now, so I may have the cmavo wrong, but it is around
> >> there somewhere.
> >=20
> > {tu'a} is the right cmavo, but I don't think this works if we're
> > (as I assume we are for the nonce) disallowing kind interpretations of
> > {lo} - it would have to mean that I like some abstraction to do with
> > some/the lions. Not much use for talking about lions in general; even
> > less for talking about unicorns in general. I fear it would have to be
> > {mi nelci tu'o lo ka cinfo}.
> >=20
> > Martin
> >=20
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> >> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> >> Sent: Mon, October 17, 2011 9:43:26 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified p=
lural=20


> >> variable
> >>=20
> >> * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 07:30 -0700 - John E Clifford=20
><kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >>=20
> >>> But "I like lions" has nothing to do with lionness, just lions.
> >>=20
> >> What does it have to do with any lions? You can like lions without
> >> liking (even potentially) any lions.
> >>=20
> >>> As for getting rid of disjunctive predication,  if you allow plural
> >>> reference, you are stuck with all the consequences (you are stuck wit=
h
> >>> them even if you use sets to cover up the problem in singular
> >>> reference).
> >>=20
> >> Why would plural reference lead you to using disjunctive predication?
> >>=20
> >>> It seems to me ythat the problems arise when you get away from basics
> >>> and try messing around with things like kinds or nesses (we have both=
,
> >>> of course, but they come in overtly, not sub rosa).
> >>>=20
> >>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> >>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> >>> Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 10:51:48 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified =
plural=20
>
>
>
> >>> variable
> >>>=20
> >>> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:09 -0700 - John E Clifford=20
><kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> >>>=20
> >>>> Ahah! "I ate disjunctively of something you like generally" or some =
such.
> >>>=20
> >>> Something along those lines, yes.
> >>>=20
> >>> The context here is that we're trying to see what happens if we throw
> >>> kinds out of the window (and also disjunctive predication, in whateve=
r
> >>> sense it was there), and try to make do with normal things - includin=
g
> >>> properties, which I hope can replace pure-kind predications of the "I
> >>> like lions" kind (think of it as "I like lionness").=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Martin
> >>>=20
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> >>>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 8:56:03 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified=
=20
>plural=20
>
> >>>> variable
> >>>>=20
> >>>> * Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 20:49 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas=20
><jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >>>>> (2) ca lo prulamnicte mi citka su'o da poi do nelci ke'a
> >>>>> "Last night I ate something you like."
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> You want to accept (1) but reject (2), even though to me they have =
the
> >>>>> exact same logical structure.
> >>=20
> >> --=20
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro=
ups=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
>=20
> --=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.