Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:39183)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDP5fz0BBoEDHhttg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RGckn-00032W-T9; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:28:57 -0700
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24sf3441247wyg.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:28:38 -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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=ko3rVc6RSrw9wK3HuzYfE2GnvEr+DbDzRvxWCWj8jn8=;
        b=v7QCsbPZCTU9v02lQltKtRbkSgxZdlfNGKcVpy61jCpxoUXwYaFXPtfZPNCmSn7R0H
         2hV5SUfEU6fCmq87e68abDeeirqoE+SYdTIVNWbvqo+kz4z3iSkYv3+mwCYjzr/mufXz
         jOABB3rXTnmwz/Ejo0CkTOpRA7xndXiKhsr9Q=
Received: by 10.216.176.2 with SMTP id a2mr1090219wem.12.1319056080028;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.227.91.77 with SMTP id l13ls5887466wbm.4.gmail; Wed, 19 Oct
 2011 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.101.38 with SMTP id a38mr236974wbo.7.1319056078912;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.101.38 with SMTP id a38mr236973wbo.7.1319056078892;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (mail-wy0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id es13si3383090wbb.3.2011.10.19.13.27.58
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175;
Received: by wyg19 with SMTP id 19so2419306wyg.20
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.61.6 with SMTP id r6mr3134749wbh.37.1319056078079;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:27:58 -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 x40sm5589741wbn.19.2011.10.19.13.27.56
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E9F32CB.4010102@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:27:55 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
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: <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> <20111019051100.GA24975@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111019051100.GA24975@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 74.125.82.175 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: <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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.6
X-Spam_score_int: -5
X-Spam_bar: /

Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 06:11:
> * 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 gard=
en)
>>>>>> (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?

By whatever rules out "it is not the case that Obama is in my garden" or "i=
t is not the case that chlorine is in my garden" from being true in a circu=
mstance in which some (but not all) Obama/chlorine is in my garden. I suppo=
se the principle is that referents are treated as atoms rather than as comp=
lexes some bits of which do broda and other bits of which don't necessarily=
 broda; but I'm really only thinking aloud in saying this.

>>> The "temporal stages of Obama" example could be dealt with by
>>> intepreting Obama as the kind 'Obama-stages', I agree, but it could als=
o
>>> 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 hac=
k
>>> like transforming it to "Obama, who was unusually exuberant" would seem
>>> reasonable.
>>
>> 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.

That kind of thing, yes. A hacky solution may or may not be reasonable, but=
 legitimate justifications for seeking a hackysolution do not include the a=
lleged absence of this phenomenon from natural language.
 =20
>>> So if I choose to omit kinds from my universe but otherwise use the sam=
e
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

It would be interesting and instructive if that turned out to be the case, =
though it's not yet apparent to me that it is. I think rather than talking =
about "well-specifiedness", we should distinguish (A) the rules mapping bet=
ween phonological form and logical form from (B) the rules mapping between =
logical form and the universe. For everybody who wants a logical language, =
it is important that (A) be well-specified. But I'm not sure there's anythi=
ng remotely approaching a consensus on whether (B) must be well-specified. =
I myself incline to the view that it needs to be specified with a certain l=
ooseness, partly for practical reasons -- because while (A) can be specifie=
d to perfection, (B) can never be finished -- and partly because speakers w=
ith different views on the nature of the universe ought still to be able to=
 speak the same language.
 =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".
>>
>> 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.

Hmm. I don't consciously find myself disagreeing with xorxes. Are there fur=
ther diagnostic questions you could pose in order to discriminate between m=
y view and the one you attribute to xorxes?

>> 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?

Between what? Different types of gadri? Probably yes -- don't worry. Or at =
least, it's interesting to discuss, but doesn't have to be addressed as par=
t of the basic specification of Lojban.
 =20
>>>> The objections to that are that it is metaphysically biased,
>>>
>>> Why is that a problem?
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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).

See my comments above about the two types of specification. I think human l=
anguages are thoroughly specified for type (A) (even tho the rules allow am=
biguity) but not for type (B). So I understand the goal of a logical langua=
ge as to be like a human language, but for the type (A) rules to exclude am=
biguity.

Nevertheless, I can understand how you might want not only a fully specifie=
d language, but also a fully specified model of the universe, because it pr=
omises perfect communication not only at the level of logical form but also=
 at the level of semantics.

But the only Lojbanists I've ever seen ask for fully specified semantics ar=
e John Clifford and you, so I'd say that your understanding of well-specifi=
edness is not the normal one.

>>>>>> "Not every mammal gives birth to live young" -- false for kinds, tru=
e
>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> At the species level yes (afaik), at the organism level no.
>
> And yet 'mammal' wasn't ambiguous? What in the question was?

Nothing. It's not ambiguous. I mean it's not technically linguistically amb=
iguous. In the more general sense of being susceptible to multiple distinct=
 interpretations, it is of course ambiguous, and the ambiguity has to do wi=
th which mammals there are in the universe of discourse.

--And.

--=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.