Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:45297)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDmt_n0BBoE6_4gfg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RGOQp-0004K9-9f; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:11:19 -0700
Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf1495887pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:11:05 -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=HgkyEeG0w72JZwYpTp6i6CtHC7GZhPkLbE//drjr0ow=;
        b=4AIS/wSyVNXFdSUv7dBZwaUsJP29UfJq3Xr7cJV/v0ONzckvlNgamQVvV3I0+Ai+uw
         EjBSCfGQMJjqLqZVYqcsVf4FstOQYepg8dm++hDMYPhOEpqvxYRl0Q/cbaDA/9GKVhmw
         5h1T6XcvLQ63Rj7pwNLBPYaKSpBi8qKKwZX6s=
Received: by 10.68.74.67 with SMTP id r3mr1166257pbv.13.1319001062611;
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.121.239 with SMTP id ln15ls4952920pbb.3.gmail; Tue, 18 Oct
 2011 22:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.21.229 with SMTP id y5mr5777317pbe.1.1319001061924;
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.21.229 with SMTP id y5mr5777316pbe.1.1319001061915;
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lf12si1131906pbb.2.2011.10.18.22.11.01
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:11:01 -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 p9J5B1lI006521
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:11:01 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RGOQe-0001GU-T9
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:11:00 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:11:00 -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: <20111019051100.GA24975@gonzales>
References: <20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales>
 <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com>
 <20111014225934.GC3111@gonzales>
 <4E98D899.7080608@gmail.com>
 <20111015200404.GB3090@gonzales>
 <4E9A39C9.3010605@gmail.com>
 <20111016050503.GA21114@gonzales>
 <4E9B77B1.2050608@gmail.com>
 <20111018032657.GO21114@gonzales>
 <4E9E4B3E.2080001@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E9E4B3E.2080001@gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: mixre
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: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /


--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 04:59 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

> Martin Bays, On 18/10/2011 04:26:
> >>>> For example, {na ku lo cinfo cu zvati lo mi purdi}
> >>>> has at least the two following meanings in terms of actual lions:
> >>>> 1. {lo cinfo} is interpreted as a plurality of mundane lions, giving
> >>>> roughly:
> >>>>        For L some (contextually relevant) lions: \not in(L, my garde=
n)
> >>>> (which probably means that there exists a lion among L which is not =
in
> >>>> my garden)
> >>>> 2. {lo cinfo} is interpreted as the kind Lions, giving
> >>>>        \not in(Lions, my garden)
> >>>> which is then resolved existentially, giving
> >>>>        \not \exists l:lion(l). in(l, my garden) .
> >> Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that English seems to allow only
> >> reading (2), and that the same might go for Lojban.
> > Ah! Have {lo} *only* able to get kinds, you mean?
> Yes. With anything that looks like a 'mundane' reconceived as a kind.

So how would you rule out interpretation 1 in the above?

> > The "temporal stages of Obama" example could be dealt with by
> > intepreting Obama as the kind 'Obama-stages', I agree, but it could also
> > be dealt with just by using tenses. I'm not sure how to deal with "an
> > unusually exuberant Obama"... but since it's a rare construction, a hack
> > like transforming it to "Obama, who was unusually exuberant" would seem
> > reasonable.
>=20
> The point is that English  does allow restrictive modification of
> _Obama_, so does recognize subtypes of Obama.

"It was the exuberant Obama who spoke today rather than the dour Obama
we're used to"? That kind of thing? The hacky solution still seems
reasonable.

> > So if I choose to omit kinds from my universe but otherwise use the same
> > rules, I am likely to be misunderstood by a kind-using lojbanist, even
> > if I avoid using lV. Xorxes just gave a nice example, the other way
> > round: {mi zukte da poi do zukte} makes a sense with kinds that it
> > doesn't without them.
>=20
> You may be likely to be misunderstood, but that's because of
> philosophical differences between you, not linguistic differences.
> You don't have to agree on whether{mi zukte da poi do zukte} couod be
> true.

If that counts as philosophy, then it seems we do have to make
philosophical pronouncements if we want to well-specify lojban.

> > The metaphysics affects everything. I don't see that the language could
> > be considered well-specified if it didn't specify the metaphysics (on
> > the broad level we're talking about). Lojban with plural semantics is
> > very different from that without it; the same goes for kinds.
>=20
> The language specifies the metaphysics that the language encodes,

Isn't that all we're talking about? Whether having kinds as individuals
separate from properties is something which is determined by the
language?

> but that doesn't tell you how the universe actually is.
>  =20
> > My question is whether you perceive a "jump" between individual lions
> > and the kind 'lions' of a different kind from that between the kinds
> > 'fierce lions' and 'lions'. I don't think it's actually a precise
> > question about the structure of the partial order... it's rather that
> > I'd split "subtype" into two relations - "instance of" and "subclass
> > of".
>=20
> I understand your questions. The answer is a very definite No. There
> are only types, related by the Subtype relation; and there are no
> instances.

Then I don't think I know at all what your "types" are. They seem to be
different from xorxes' kinds, which seem (or at least so my
uncontradicted impression was) to correspond to properties of
individuals at the level below.

> I think it would be good to have other gadri based on a model in which
> there are no types, only instances.

And not worry about interactions?

> >> The objections to that are that it is metaphysically biased,
> >
> > Why is that a problem?
>=20
> Avoidance of metaphysical bias was one of Lojban's aims. A fairly
> obvious and sensible one, since the language should not tell the
> speaker how the universe is, but rather should allow the speaker to
> describe how the speaker thinks the universe is. =20

This seems to be in direct competition with an aim of lojban with which
I'm more familiar, namely that it be well-specified. Having a thorough
model-theoretic formal semantics seems to me an important part of
satisfying that aim - and it would involve specifying a metaphysics (by
your definition of metaphysics).

But asking whether kinds (in the Chierchia sense, at least) "really
exist" makes no more sense than asking whether 0 is really the empty
set. Kinds are just a convenient linguistic device.

> >>>> "Not every mammal gives birth to live young" -- false for kinds, true
> >>>> for mundanes; but that doesn't mean "mammal" is ambiguous.
> >>>
> >>> So you'd say the statement is simply false, with the kind 'porcupines'
> >>> as a witness?
> >>
> >> I don't understand the question.
> >
> > Does every mammal give birth to live young?
>=20
> At the species level yes (afaik), at the organism level no.

And yet 'mammal' wasn't ambiguous? What in the question was?

Martin

--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk6eW+QACgkQULC7OLX7LNagdwCfU3UtAlOH9xulesL1ev5LpbbQ
CKIAoLnDX3uzP6eOCvHltALjAT/ItB1F
=PCvT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR--