Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:45810) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RGiHA-0004ce-9u; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:42 -0700 Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4sf3889035gyh.16 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version: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=GIzqlLSE6fsjKoBm++g/cuLc7rm6tT950wRFeUxs7Pk=; b=V5sHCSvsuUAwZcDMs2co4xeIZXzB1x9JGVYovmjblvnolI3hqgLVeljYxznPQnKwNo 280O+iopGX3AvdNhUOjAF9/kaMmNntis3PoMqVy0E1XqnmEylyR91jHPbLdsmMGH9pJC WzVZ+FrX0JIZLUUhwKlP5B7B6hz/aZUYXhlRo= Received: by 10.150.68.7 with SMTP id q7mr2382424yba.15.1319077343376; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.15.7 with SMTP id 7ls7431339ybo.3.gmail; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.120.2 with SMTP id o2mr15458867yhh.5.1319077342826; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.120.2 with SMTP id o2mr15458866yhh.5.1319077342816; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm9.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm9.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.210]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id y45si2624271yhl.1.2011.10.19.19.22.22; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.210 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.210; Received: from [66.94.237.126] by nm9.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Oct 2011 02:22:22 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.104] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Oct 2011 02:22:22 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1009.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 Oct 2011 02:22:22 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 337641.89850.bm@omp1009.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 22193 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Oct 2011 02:22:22 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: _1BCRyAVM1lravzGwjTQUKbGzInjyWrGrP6vhCcgPJ6iIzg NgAQzOrjcYxd3AMzZ.8dr4nGtLQ7omAHNOt3cfL8xNQCVG2A_QjmOWUQhLu1 ii7N5MrnLTvolYNQYIy2caRJahU64umlVjtlOOl.WmqewrA8dJFw_qSAl3HA NawXv3_.idnDxFSyGMNHB19nHW_zIuq0wtxm9tjiTZnC9_PzawrGQYdY1cVU y623H3wdKy5Rc8SqSs74IrhL_wLlL_yMvQMJTc3KeH.4gRu6uwUWL6rNNdRf vGL3DQHMJGkpVWG8raAuD45GPliw4GJWcVUWFbaKXm2kI.jxWV0xj18AUUMS 0W4w4204i_cyWsmTRd0SIvrWV5hhIQWfctyT6vILRPNb2HXAPClIcM_Kb6_w YEzWd8tjOJk3jbcKPdnEzEIbazjDfplE2wahG0oLEaK2DnoHSbMfnbUyz5nI sptLiaknMrbzPdu2bRi1zuIbonkqW5oN2bOm53Xyaw.RJ7RAd_cJ36xoFG3w vlRDylUYabtplHwTxjkdRJrvIUv3UdDHwXeViHPl3 Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:22 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/574 YahooMailWebService/0.8.114.317681 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> <4E9F32CB.4010102@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1319077342.88005.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:22:22 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <4E9F32CB.4010102@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.210 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Odd notion of ambiguity which doesn't occur but still presents a sentence which is both true and false. ----- Original Message ---- From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 3:27:55 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 06:11: > * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 04:59 +0100 - And Rosta: > >> 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 garden) >>>>>> (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 "it is not the case that chlorine is in my garden" from being true in a circumstance in which some (but not all) Obama/chlorine is in my garden. I suppose the principle is that referents are treated as atoms rather than as complexes 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 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. >> >> 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 alleged absence of this phenomenon from natural language. >>> 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. >> >> 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 between 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 anything 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 looseness, partly for practical reasons -- because while (A) can be specified to perfection, (B) can never be finished -- and partly because speakers with different views on the nature of the universe ought still to be able to speak the same language. >>> 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 further diagnostic questions you could pose in order to discriminate between my 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 part of the basic specification of Lojban. >>>> 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 languages are thoroughly specified for type (A) (even tho the rules allow ambiguity) but not for type (B). So I understand the goal of a logical language as to be like a human language, but for the type (A) rules to exclude ambiguity. Nevertheless, I can understand how you might want not only a fully specified language, but also a fully specified model of the universe, because it promises 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 are John Clifford and you, so I'd say that your understanding of well-specifiedness is not the normal one. >>>>>> "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? >> >> 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 ambiguous. In the more general sense of being susceptible to multiple distinct interpretations, it is of course ambiguous, and the ambiguity has to do with which mammals there are in the universe of discourse. --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. -- 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.