Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:43969)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDPpPn0BBoEgFqIcQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RGNnE-00049P-7I; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:30:23 -0700
Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf1463548pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:30:09 -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=ouPzAET5GiMIYyJ9zZhUSGStYpDfL08676AHni6wqxA=;
        b=mQu76eMEPRAs0ip6gXzQriA//nOJQUKXNZ4M3J/2VhhFxDtLTKvI1jBs2B04o0PJ5V
         1+zuBemVYeDrmGddT5gu63Z/ZeUYInCbSyLZtBJGibtfdEIfxdUrkzsIOE4vRujFJSlg
         8ueHwPISMiAMQL35nRL9Bl/mi8FjfRrxwkDB8=
Received: by 10.68.60.132 with SMTP id h4mr1130827pbr.20.1318998607258;
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.19.131 with SMTP id f3ls4839151pbe.5.gmail; Tue, 18 Oct
 2011 21:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr2235625pbj.5.1318998606604;
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr2235624pbj.5.1318998606593;
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lf12si1025684pbb.2.2011.10.18.21.30.06
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:30:06 -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 p9J4U5AX010148
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:30:06 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RGNn3-0006eM-Mm
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:30:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:30:05 -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: <20111019043005.GC5069@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <4E9E3C5F.2000606@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LwW0XdcUbUexiWVK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E9E3C5F.2000606@gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: sucta
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: /


--LwW0XdcUbUexiWVK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 03:56 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

> Martin Bays, On 18/10/2011 04:31:
> > * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 01:40 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>:
> >>> (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}.
>=20
> Is there consensus on what fractional quantifiers should mean?

Not to my knowledge.

> I find it hard to think of an valid argument for piro being distinct from=
 ro.

There seems to be at least some consensus that {ro} is a singular
quantifier. {piPA} has tended to be used for other things.

If {pi za'u} is to be a plural existential quantifier, which it would be
very useful for it to be, then it seems we're obliged to have {pi ro
ko'a} =3D=3D {ko'a} (just a null-op), and have {pi ro broda} being, for
distributive broda, the plurality formed from the extension of broda.
For non-distributive broda, it's less clear.

> >>> 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?
>=20
> 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").

So just adding non-veridiciality?

Martin

--LwW0XdcUbUexiWVK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk6eUk0ACgkQULC7OLX7LNY1uQCgrHx5I3NLA/uJ1HcxGWkVeJ6j
dAEAoNI8eXkvbmkVHMK73Up5kIKLg8PY
=5Wty
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LwW0XdcUbUexiWVK--