Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:65119)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC1kIf1BBoEOHXe3A@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RHKn8-0006rK-55; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:30:15 -0700
Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16sf3489042vws.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:29:59 -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-id:x-yahoo-newman-property
         :x-ymail-osg:x-yahoo-smtp:references:in-reply-to
         :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id
         :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date: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=J2HvvnD4eB/+LRT81vXDgml6BuQFlSTYi2kZnOeRu+4=;
        b=VKtDJcoI6CBAJHrzpNGN80QJHiWURybUEnpCNrUOzXIjc5L/0X75vEhknHUM6nz6JZ
         7R7VQTg+7m6yXWOUnTcFxaOBnW/BvUmHEP1IQPbX1/+rl6G5I4e9n33up72u9ikLplIj
         COovfPzDKe+Rk76TYMdpNLVUTJRdL7ij5PEGw=
Received: by 10.220.151.78 with SMTP id b14mr1461523vcw.21.1319225397210;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.24.163 with SMTP id v3ls8240838vdf.3.gmail; Fri, 21 Oct
 2011 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.90.34 with SMTP id bt2mr13199831vdb.4.1319225396418;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.90.34 with SMTP id bt2mr13199830vdb.4.1319225396406;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm1-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm1-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com. [98.139.53.202])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id cn4si5238233vdb.3.2011.10.21.12.29.56;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.53.202 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.53.202;
Received: from [98.139.52.194] by nm1.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Oct 2011 19:29:56 -0000
Received: from [98.139.52.180] by tm7.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Oct 2011 19:29:56 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1063.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Oct 2011 19:29:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 216670.30385.bm@omp1063.mail.ac4.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 21428 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2011 19:29:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: cCg6ExAVM1nlI1DOhZ51BNN1O61i157zVmF6_COIvMWEi71
 5i0aAbBs.qfqu4nOnLpYmp72oR8Khsc5S_zomw3GmIzcKT09bUlThNZeU.q7
 nj7Ht8NsGLqn2wZ.LF6Ipb3wiM.DFJ14bqOvEjR72LJgvHgYSmR2TGpX8oxD
 ngP9ShgnH_mbQ2tryu1GFCgYT0uEPGnVNIV1pXdL4q4lWIX4QQEEWV3XzPLL
 3G09fsjQ47XTnCHJpVE8J.OLPLybLy5dfP9Y9xIMYFi94G09MFXP53N.hjVg
 WB9ooJdN9ZMU88ctg01549x0fd461ZKdY1tr38mV4uaWTfVgdVXgOo3CaArl
 EccqSv_7K_WnuDXvdkM15hAstfWHJFzxjJCclYqONe5XJ6qIGQgUh6nIIQZs
 KvY0av_JZltyoIC72aJ70e8K7KUpf3rtVXPf0a2ArQEs4d8iORpLrIMlTiLw
 IBcJnNNBzISTbM3c97tb9rAmHhAJOaAs7o2kpB5U6gZkDlFoCeICP.MW6rKr
 GCqXCZJPEuQe6masgTA--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g-
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie)
        by smtp111-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2011 12:29:55 -0700 PDT
References: <20111018044730.GB30548@gonzales> <20111018054425.GP21114@gonzales> <20111019184449.GC5010@gonzales> <1319076660.7053.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111020024132.GH5010@gonzales> <E7E854FB-384D-4137-B4C4-F200D8FAFFB7@yahoo.com> <20111021001006.GA28229@gonzales> <30281CDD-EDDD-4C0C-B69E-C5CCF5DD0DA5@yahoo.com> <20111021141620.GD28229@gonzales> <1319211982.72395.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111021190055.GF28229@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111021190055.GF28229@gonzales>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <4E25E755-2FF6-4BDB-A5A4-5252845E0992@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_10657790_AHjHjkQAAWlQTqHBbwNfNUnWvLo
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:43:38 -0400
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
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 98.139.53.202
 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: <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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

I'm not too clear on what you thought I was proposing, though it must not b=
e too far from what I have in mind.  I am not sure that Hans' paper will he=
lp you much, for, while I taken over some things from him in terms of dynam=
ic domains and alternate domains, I have developed somewhat differently, as=
 Lojban seems to require.
Particular quantification is the old term for existential quantification, w=
ith the advantage that it does not appear to claim more than something is i=
n the domain, in particular, does not appear to claim it is the extension o=
f "exist" {zasti}.
Sorry about the mumble there; I am just never sure which procedure works be=
st: a supply of things that turn up in different guises in each world or a =
different set of things for each world, somehow sometimes linked between wo=
rlds.  Neither is perfect, but each has it's uses. (Hindu v. Buddhist, as s=
o many things are).
Sent from my iPad

On Oct 21, 2011, at 15:00, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Friday, 2011-10-21 at 08:46 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.c=
om>:
>=20
>> If you want to say that flying dodos look silly, then your domain of dis=
course=20
>> (at least in Lojban) contains flying dodos.  {lo} expressions always imp=
ly the=20
>> particular quantification on their defining predication.  Not that such =
things=20
>> need exist, of course (part of the reason I use "particular" rather than=
=20
>> "existential" for that quantifier)
> What's particular quantification? I'm not familiar with the term.
>=20
>> It is not clear that this is a different approach to tense and
>> intensions, though it may be a different approach to domains of
>> discourse (looking at Kamp again).
>=20
> Discourse representation theory? Should I just read about that if I want
> to understand you? I think I do have Kamp's paper on my harddrive.
>=20
>> The properties these nonexistent things may have probably derive from
>> the ones they have in worlds where they exist (not necessarily the
>> same things, mind you, but the things at the other end of some sort of
>> projection)
>=20
> Not really with you here.
>=20
> Well, it seems that I didn't understand correctly your solution. I don't
> see much wrong with the solution I understood you as proposing... but
> I'm happy to have multiple working solutions before having to pick one!
>=20
> Martin
>=20
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Fri, October 21, 2011 9:16:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plu=
ral=20
>> variable
>>=20
>> * Friday, 2011-10-21 at 05:51 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo=
.com>:
>>=20
>>> I think there may be other possibilities.  For example, {lo broda} may
>>> return a bunch, all of the subbunches in a partition of which broda in
>>> sense i.
>>=20
>> OK, we can call that sense (is).
>>=20
>> ('s' being the roman numeral for 1/2, apparently)
>>=20
>>> So, the glorked (whence this word btw) have to be unicorns in
>>> some world.  Why not in this one?
>>=20
>> Because there aren't any unicorns in it.
>>=20
>> How about if it had been "flying dodos look silly"? Would you want the
>> flying dodos to be in this present world (by which I mean: to ca ca'a
>> vofli je cipnrdodo)?
>>=20
>>> That is my intention; otherwise I have a mess of problems about cross-
>>> worlds identity  and the meaning of predication (which, partly,
>>> I suppose, is why you want to add {ka'e}).
>>=20
>> I don't see how you can coherently get around this mess.
>>=20
>>> Now, depending on the context, {lo pavelseljirna cu lazni} may or may
>>> not take us to a world where unicorns exist, but the point is that it
>>> does not have to; we can and do fold nonexistent unicorns -- items in
>>> the extension of {pavelsejirna} -- into our current domain of
>>> discourse, which depends on what we say, not on the facts.
>>=20
>> It seems you have some very different setup for handling tenses and
>> intension than the one I've been assuming - in which there might well be
>> entities in the domain of discourse which satisfy pavyseljirna_w for
>> some worlds w, but they won't satisfy pavyseljirna_{w_0} for this world
>> w_0, because no unicorns currently exist.
>>=20
>> Could you explain your setup? I don't see what it could be.
>>=20
>> Martin
>>=20
>>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 20:10, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> * Thursday, 2011-10-20 at 12:26 -0400 - John E. Clifford=20
>>> <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>>>>=20
>>>>> Now I am mor con used than before.  Why is there only one bunch off
>>>>> people living in glass houses and why must they all exist at one time
>>>>> / in one world, and why can't they?  I am unclear what restrictions
>>>>> you are placing on worlds an domains.  I am also unclear as to what
>>>>> you think the logical form of "People who live in glass houses should
>>>>> install proper insulation" is.
>>>>=20
>>>> Hmm. Probably I'm making some assumption which you're not, leading to
>>>> confusion. But I'm not sure what that assumption might be. So let me
>>>> just express again the issue in different words:
>>>>=20
>>>> Ignoring all the more subtle issues we've been discussing, there are t=
wo
>>>> basic possible bunch-theoretic meanings for {lo}. When applied to
>>>> a unary predicate P, it either=20
>>>> (i) returns a bunch X such that P(X)
>>>> or (ii) returns a bunch X such that for every atom x below X, P(x).
>>>>=20
>>>> ("atom x below X" could also be written "individual x in the bunch X";
>>>> I'll continue to use the 'atom' terminology because I think it best
>>>> indicates that individuals aren't disjoint from bunches - individuals
>>>> are just "singleton" bunches. I'll use the notation "x <=3D X" to mean
>>>> that x is an atom below X (so lower case variables are "singular
>>>> variables", i.e. are variables on the atoms sort))
>>>>=20
>>>> If we write {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni} to mean "unicorns are lazy"
>>>> (which I believe is true - who ever heard of a pack-unicorn or
>>>> a unicorn-plough?), the unary predicate in question is probably
>>>> (slightly) more precisely expressed by {ka'e pavyseljirna}, and is:
>>>>=20
>>>> U(X) <=3D> "there exists a world w such that pavyseljirna(X) in w".
>>>>=20
>>>> Under (i) we get:
>>>>=20
>>>> {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni}
>>>>   -> GL X:U(X). lazni(X)
>>>>   =3D=3D "for a glorked bunch X such that U(X) holds, lazni(X) holds"
>>>>=20
>>>> whereas under (ii) we get:
>>>>=20
>>>> {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni}
>>>>   -> GL X:(FA x <=3D X. U(x)). lazni(X)
>>>>   =3D=3D "for a glorked bunch X such that U(x) holds for every atom
>>>>   x below X, lazni(X) holds" .
>>>>=20
>>>> Substituting in the definition of U and using distributivity, under (i=
) we=20
>>> get:
>>>>=20
>>>> GL X:(EX w. pavyseljirna_w(X)). lazni(X)
>>>>   =3D=3D GL X:(EX w. FA x <=3D X. pavyseljirna_w(x)). lazni(X)
>>>>   =3D=3D "for a glorked bunch X such that for some world every atom be=
low
>>>>   X is a unicorn, X is lazy"
>>>>=20
>>>> while under (ii) we get:
>>>>=20
>>>> GL X:(FA x <=3D X. EX w. pavyseljirna_w(x)). lazni(X)
>>>>   =3D=3D "for a glorked X such that for every atom below X there is
>>>>   a world in which it is a unicorn, X is lazy" .
>>>>=20
>>>> So the (ii) case is the one we want, if we want to get at the sense of
>>>> the english "unicorns are lazy".
>>>>=20
>>>> Did that make any more sense?
>>>>=20
>>>> Martin
>>>>=20
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 22:41, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 19:11 -0700 - John E Clifford=20
>>> <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> U\I'm not going to worry about {loi} etc. until I am sutre about {l=
o} and=20
>>> then=20
>>>=20
>>>>>>> see what is lefyt over that needs dealing with. {lo cipnrdodo) refe=
rs
>>>>>>> to all the dodos there ever were (suppose that is right for this
>>>>>>> context), all of which are thus in the domain of discourse and also=
 in
>>>>>>> the extension of {cipnrdodo}.  What problem are you having; I just
>>>>>>> don't see it?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Hmm. So you'd want every dodo which ever lived to now cipnrdodo - ev=
en
>>>>>> if it doesn't zasti, nevermind jmive?
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> That might work for some cases, but what if we want to say "people i=
n
>>>>>> glass houses should install proper insulation"? Even if the people i=
n
>>>>>> question (who mostly don't zasti in this possible world, nevermind n=
ow)
>>>>>> were to ca ca'a prenu, they surely couldn't ca ca'a nenri su'o blaci
>>>>>> zdani; nor is there any other world in which they all do.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> So the bunch of them doesn't satisfy {prenu gi'e nenri su'o blaci
>>>>>> zdani} - since there's only one bunch, we would need that the bunch
>>>>>> satisfies this in some given world. It doesn't.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> But each atom (person, in this case) in the bunch does satisfy {pren=
u
>>>>>> gi'e nenri su'o blaci zdani}. So for {lo prenu poi nenri su'o blaci
>>>>>> zdani} to get the bunch, we'd need the quantifier over worlds to go
>>>>>> inside a quantifier over the bunch. The gadri seems the right place
>>>>>> to specify this.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
>>>>>>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 1:44:49 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantifie=
d=20
>>> plural=20
>>>=20
>>>>>>> variable
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 01:44 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 00:47 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>=
:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 19:46 -0700 - John E Clifford=20
>>>>>>> <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I finally understand what you mean with your "kinds =3D m=
aximal
>>>>>>>>>>> bunches" idea. Let's see.
>>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>>> I've been implicitly assuming that in {lo broda}, the tense ins=
ide=20
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> description is by default copied from outside it. So {mi ca ca'=
a=20
>> nelci
>>>>>>>>>>> lo pavyseljirna} =3D=3D {mi ca ca'a nelci lo ca ca'a pavyseljir=
na}, which=20
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> false if there are no unicorns.
>>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> I suppose the tense (if there is one) is as contextual as everyt=
hing=20
>>> else=20
>>>=20
>>>>>>>> about=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> descriptions.  The same as the bridi surely is a good guess in g=
eneral,=20
>>> but=20
>>>=20
>>>>>>>> may=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> be obviously wrong in other circumstances.  For example, in=20
>>> generalities,=20
>>>=20
>>>>>>>> the=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> tense (if that is the right notion) is probably past, present, f=
uture=20
>>> and=20
>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Right, so I think I do understand you.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> Does this work?
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> But there's something of a problem: if the plural referent of {lo =
broda}
>>>>>>>> is meant to satisfy broda, what tense can give us e.g. all dodos e=
ver?
>>>>>>>> The plural referent of {lo pu cipnrdodo} must satisfy {pu cipnrdod=
o},
>>>>>>>> i.e. must have satisfied {cipnrdodo} at some point in the past. Bu=
t that
>>>>>>>> means we're picking up some dodos all of which existed at the same=
 time.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> So it seems we'd have to have the rule be that {ro lo broda cu bro=
da},
>>>>>>>> rather than {lo broda cu broda}, for this to work.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> ...and then it might make sense to have {loi broda} be the same as =
{lo},
>>>>>>> except that the plural referent is required to broda (rather than t=
he
>>>>>>> atoms below it brodaing). So while {lo pu cipnrdodo} could get the =
bunch
>>>>>>> (aka plurality) of all dodos ever, {loi pu cipnrdodo} would have to=
 get
>>>>>>> a bunch all of which cipnrdodod at the same past time (which might =
imply
>>>>>>> that they were all alive at the same time, or if dead at least not =
too
>>>>>>> far decomposed...).
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> So this contains some of the essence of the historical meaning of {=
loi},
>>>>>>> and is usefully distinct from (the understanding under discussion o=
f)
>>>>>>> {lo}.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> --=20
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google =
Groups=20
>>> "lojban" group.
>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
>>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at=20
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> --=20
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr=
oups=20
>>> "lojban" group.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
>>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at=20
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --=20
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou=
ps=20
>>> "lojban" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
>>> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at=20
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group=
s "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/loj=
ban?hl=3Den.

--=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.