Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:41668)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCk8fz0BBoE-NrReQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RGd8H-0003Ie-D7; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:53:12 -0700
Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf2138123pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:52:55 -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=O0NDaQSw6tkJ8Xr1d2jgL8PEAqye5Td0O983LQTjjl0=;
        b=VBNNMbnYhy8KfQRAOXmLiy+bYCf0Ks/ihFwvYuYzt1cIq5iVcN6tcySqMsi0aUH1kW
         M4UuJq+2HiBRCUYZeZoNm0lzHCtvJbJSt7VRmaDubMvRKhWzGRicMl1s5rU6iLL94WVs
         oqG/lgiKhRZkXcaL16zu36gmBowvU2RAOPI/M=
Received: by 10.68.44.233 with SMTP id h9mr1633209pbm.2.1319057572244;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.121.239 with SMTP id ln15ls7336461pbb.3.gmail; Wed, 19 Oct
 2011 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr8593087pbk.6.1319057571391;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.38.134 with SMTP id g6mr8593084pbk.6.1319057571354;
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id lf12si3881051pbb.2.2011.10.19.13.52.51
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:52:51 -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 p9JKqoDd013269
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:52:50 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RGd86-0003IB-3o
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:52:50 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:52:50 -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: <20111019205250.GE5010@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <20111019043005.GC5069@gonzales>
 <4E9F24CB.2000901@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KuLpqunXa7jZSBt+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E9F24CB.2000901@gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: kicne
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: 0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 20:28 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
    > Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 05:30: > > * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 03:56
   +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>: > >> 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} == {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. > > Ah, I see. So for "pi mu plise" there are three
    candidate meanings: > [i] "half an apple" (Pierre's), > [ii] "half of appledom"
    (my stab at glossing yours), [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid


--KuLpqunXa7jZSBt+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 20:28 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:

> Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 05:30:
> > * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 03:56 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>:
> >> 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 f=
rom 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.
>=20
> Ah, I see. So for "pi mu plise" there are three candidate meanings:
> [i] "half an apple" (Pierre's),
> [ii] "half of appledom" (my stab at glossing yours),

(sounds right)

> and [iii] "one in every two apples" (what I had vaguely thought it
> meant before this conversation).

(ii) and (iii) are likely to have similar effects; the main difference
is that (iii) has {pi mu} being a singular quantifier.

With (i), {pi mu} doesn't seem to be a quantifier at all.

It's true that having {pi so so so broda} have wholly different effect
=66rom {pa broda}, as (ii) and (iii) would imply, is a little ugly...

For reference: the current text in the definition of {loi} on the gadri
section page appears to more or less accord with (ii) - although only
after translating it from the 'mongrel' system to pure plural semantics,
such that {loi broda} has a single plural referent rather than multiple
referents each of which is a "group"...

(At some point, we do need to write up this pure plural semantics - which
I believe at least xorxes, John Clifford and I were in agreement on, and
which seems to be necessary to make real sense of xor{lo}. But this may
be premature if, as I'm currently hoping, JC's idea that plural
semantics also solves these kinds/types issues works out.)

> >>>>> So maybe {loi} should actually be defined like that. {loi cinfo} me=
ans
> >>>>> 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").
> >
> > So just adding non-veridiciality?
>=20
> adding nonveridicality with voi, and specificity with co'e.

How does {co'e} give specificity, sorry?

Martin

--KuLpqunXa7jZSBt+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk6fOKIACgkQULC7OLX7LNa/hACfb/LXtMFy1d9uzyoWqbhRy9GL
uecAoJZnX6cYvtMJwV2kNsU2Sy+Jx7kh
=fMHs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KuLpqunXa7jZSBt+--