Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:63463) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RGMKj-0003ia-HP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:54 -0700 Received: by wwg7 with SMTP id 7sf1994085wwg.16 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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; bh=sAmA4BKBWTaf0bVD0tSWJplCNYjN2aV6UphkU1IJAdg=; b=lB9Gk5QFpjMdbiqTFchoxXNL/WYrI+inrXK9hz+Ylyulh5jT6eXU9/JlQXrLTizLQ4 PrEQpVa/A8SAZVx+STf2csXteqahrhfdkQU1D5jKx2DOLKspuA1NednAfUAT5wjJt9NZ 9986etZjINai39FhwwclWVdRT/9n+8dF9W9HM= Received: by 10.216.133.203 with SMTP id q53mr630407wei.17.1318992995385; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.202.220 with SMTP id d70ls5094746weo.3.gmail; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.14.223 with SMTP id d73mr69538wed.7.1318992994540; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.14.223 with SMTP id d73mr69537wed.7.1318992994524; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v20si2081177wbn.1.2011.10.18.19.56.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.181; Received: by wyh5 with SMTP id 5so1489207wyh.40 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.7.159 with SMTP id d31mr1920650wbd.18.1318992994126; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (cpc1-pres4-0-0-cust401.pres.cable.virginmedia.com. [80.193.151.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fy13sm7055081wbb.18.2011.10.18.19.56.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E9E3C5F.2000606@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:56:31 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable References: <1318202744.44997.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales> <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com> <20111014225934.GC3111@gonzales> <4E98D899.7080608@gmail.com> <20111015200404.GB3090@gonzales> <4E9A39C9.3010605@gmail.com> <20111016050503.GA21114@gonzales> <20111016171146.GB21114@gonzales> <4E9B7960.5070006@gmail.com> <20111018033124.GA30548@gonzales> In-Reply-To: <20111018033124.GA30548@gonzales> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@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: 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; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / Martin Bays, On 18/10/2011 04:31: > * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 01:40 +0100 - And Rosta: >>> (i) with this definition, {loi} is very close to Chierchia's version of >>> the iota operator, which is his explanation of "the": when applied to >>> a predicate in a domain, it gives the maximal plurality in the domain >>> which satisfies the predicate if there is a unique such (as there is >>> with a distributive predicate like a noun). For this to coexist with >>> normal quantification, the domain should be some glorked subdomain of >>> the full domain. >> >> Why some glorked subdomain, rather than just the full domain? > > Having it with the full domain would essentially replicate the > functionality of {pi ro broda}. Is there consensus on what fractional quantifiers should mean? I find it hard to think of an valid argument for piro being distinct from ro. >>> So maybe {loi} should actually be defined like that. {loi cinfo} means >>> precisely the same thing as "the lions". >> >> I think "the lions" would mean {lei cinfo}, actually, but that's >> a point about English, and doesn't contradict your underlying point. > > Just making a veridiciality distinction? Or specificity too? I don't know how sclerotic my thinking is, but I'm thinking "the lions" is {lo co'e voi cinfo} (or maybe also your {loi co'e voi cinfo}) and "le broda" is "lo co'e voi broda" (and "lei broda" "lei co'e voi broda"). --And. -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.