Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:34320) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RFzoh-00015r-Em; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:21 -0700 Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4sf174531gyh.16 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:05 -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=CBcILCU/Jp/SRIL3NwBKV5I0Sczw3rXtGpQxLTkgW7g=; b=eJryLHbIXo/ils1B2wEfs4kekMWuDGVurpt8FuvoqTWavWBJGovScMzzveGNUS/iGE YHqlEnRfoHYr7qFAXvJ3y3PGbi7klDLAOfIveGTyQ2PYCmQ7W0TdIUOl9hw3pa78Hkc8 Bss4k3gzGAJnullL0HYx5Tf4TrfuqnORrmc/U= Received: by 10.150.62.4 with SMTP id k4mr138969yba.10.1318906442711; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.56.20 with SMTP id e20ls702407ana.5.gmail; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.145.138 with SMTP id p10mr883732yhj.3.1318906442076; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.145.138 with SMTP id p10mr883730yhj.3.1318906442066; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm15.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm15.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.216]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id z70si177662yhn.5.2011.10.17.19.54.01; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.216 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.216; Received: from [66.94.237.127] by nm15.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Oct 2011 02:54:01 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.104] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Oct 2011 02:54:01 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1009.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Oct 2011 02:54:01 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 760168.32143.bm@omp1009.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 37016 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Oct 2011 02:54:01 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: sZOqBwUVM1kVhp7xQWx0GZMOvjMhiDFXDKzRltM_DRhV898 kvl1Akifv0Ka1Bj18wx2v2STpY.lJnoUNYFJ8HZtCR8aD43NwkuWRGgpyhyU 7xm.uZHxdQrq8yIb4uCrLTEYfSeTxc6kQ6x.R2y7HFDw7.yOTEMlOoykgOy2 g080PAoPvpTlOWX7sjuCJD.qXcaXHXW6cRNlQRPtWbYarMaSKo_rZScAfyXf tf87Zm3knOXPDwOlwgZe.QZBPHnNvO21CY1gLGwZbutqA6Tv0uvUaaiMgCRD ZuqI.wm7KDZNieGqwSzAzViS3CTNdRW9HLwuTALLGs8fWAINN4nJcpogYN3X gqer9OcwewZH6CgBIMPIKPekTPgLc6wQ.n9CT60DRBicRCGA5MFpYXoZ4WWA zpiJ1anhthqLfq1xKeA7TDcMhDQ7B7nij4huNu8RaU0s0g7091fePcjYtdNY 8Uahb4JyjQz8XSJRID6eFFa_B2AWW3xBLaeiptRkISFniDYiMzVam1KT05vu 1TwBoK4YkPDEtNAAIwp5mITA- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:01 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> <4E9A3F33.5050609@gmail.com> <4E9B80AF.30901@gmail.com> <4E9CC052.8010805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1318906441.28301.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:01 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <4E9CC052.8010805@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 66.94.237.216 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / It seems that, if you insist on going over to occurrences, you are going to= get=20 stuck with repetitions. I don't know any particular logical reason to drop= =20 conditionals in favor of occurrences (and several thousand years of people= =20 rejecting that idea against it). In any case, what does this have to do wi= th=20 Lojban, which, by definition, has no grammatical donkey sentences, since th= ese=20 are just the sort of things that logical languages weed out. Apparent cas= es=20 are either ungrammatical or misinterpreted (assuming the claims about Lojba= n are=20 true). ----- Original Message ---- From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, October 17, 2011 6:54:58 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural= =20 variable Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 17/10/2011 02:55: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:11 PM, And Rosta wrote: >> Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 17/10/2011 01:31: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM, And Rosta wro= te: >>>> >>>> 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 circumstanc= e >>>> 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 = is >> 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. "Every circumstance is such that in it, it is not the case that there is mo= ney=20 that you give me and that I do not spend on drugs" -- that does without "if= " and=20 sidesteps the existential import issue, and yes, it works. I remember now I= 'd=20 worked that out in 2004, with much more strenuous effort than it took you, = and=20 then forgot and became fixated on repetition avoidance strategies other tha= n=20 simple reformulation. Oh hang on, just remembered. "Every circumstance" is the easy case. Right, = so=20 the English example is "If you give me money, I'll probably spend it on dru= gs".=20 And this reduces to "Most circumstances in which there is money that you gi= ve me=20 arecircumstances in which there is money that you give me and that I spend = on=20 drugs". Because the quantifier is "most", you can't do away with the restri= cted=20 quantification. Now turn yourself loose on solving that one! =20 >> But let's change "money" to "five quid": "Every circumstance is such tha= t 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". > >> Or 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 quantif= iers. Yes, sorry. I think I was thinking of them both as nondonkey sentences that= =20 wouldn't transform in the way you proposed to transform the donkey sentence= s,=20 but that wasn't really relevant to the discussion. >>> 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 = you >> 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" = or >> "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". It's what I see as the challenge. Reducing logical form to fundamentals inv= olves=20 reducing conditionals to quantification over circumstances, and that leads = to=20 lots of structures where donkey sentences appear to be avoidable only by=20 repetition. Things would have been clearer if I'd originally remembered i should choose= a=20 quantifier like "most" that requires restricted quantification, because=20 obviously those are the cases that resist reformulation to avoid repetition= . =20 >>> 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 o= f >> 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. Indeed -- that's the angle relevant to natural language. =20 >> I take it to be when you have >> quantification within a restriction on a variable, in "for every X such = that >> 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 ev= ery >> 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 i= s >> 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. The challenge for a logical language is to find a sensical form that is not= =20 repetitious -- given that the essential goal of a logical language is to ha= ve=20 sensical forms without natlang ambiguity but without greater verbosity than= =20 natlangs require. --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.