Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.53.218 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.53.218;
References: <20111021001006.GA28229@gonzales> <30281CDD-EDDD-4C0C-B69E-C5CCF5DD0DA5@yahoo.com> <20111021141620.GD28229@gonzales> <1319211982.72395.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111021190055.GF28229@gonzales> <4E25E755-2FF6-4BDB-A5A4-5252845E0992@yahoo.com> <20111022030801.GG28229@gonzales> <1319308068.11247.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111023203658.GH28229@gonzales> <1319404501.57946.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111023213304.GA3230@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111023213304.GA3230@gonzales>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <C988BE8A-398C-43F4-AE98-C0A1DF39C829@yahoo.com>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:57:42 -0400
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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:  I don't think I ever held that all flying albatrosses had
   to exist at a single time ( and I can't figure out what I said that would
   sound like that). What I probably did say was that all flying albatrosses
   are in the domain of discourse when I say "Flying albatrosses look funny"
   as a full generalization. Otherwise it wouldn't be a full generalization.
   But that has nothing to do with either existence or time. I've forgotten what
    (i) is, so I am not sure (but then I have forgotten what Richard's semantics
    looks like in crucial details). Especially the generalized arbitrary partition
    bit. On kinds, my position is just that kinds (if you want to use that word)
    are just biggest bunches viewed in certain ways and so call for nothing other
    than things of the ordinary sort. To be sure, the recent talk about mass
   nouns has made me start to think again about details, but even they don't
   lead me toward mass-like kinds from which individuals are temporarily carved
    out. Not for Lojban anyhow. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (kali9putra[at]yahoo.com)
 -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW      RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
                             trust
                             [209.85.212.61 listed in list.dnswl.org]
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
  0.8 DATE_IN_PAST_12_24     Date: is 12 to 24 hours before Received: date
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

I don't think I ever held that all flying albatrosses had to exist at a sin=
gle time ( and I can't figure out what I said that would sound like that). =
 What I probably did say was that all flying albatrosses are in the domain =
of discourse when I say "Flying albatrosses look funny" as a full generaliz=
ation.  Otherwise it wouldn't be a full generalization.  But that has nothi=
ng to do with either existence or time.
I've forgotten what (i) is, so I am not sure (but then I have forgotten wha=
t Richard's semantics looks like in crucial details). Especially the genera=
lized arbitrary partition bit.  On kinds, my position is just that kinds (i=
f you want to use that word) are just biggest bunches viewed in certain way=
s and so call for nothing other than things of the ordinary sort.  To be su=
re, the recent talk about mass nouns has made me start to think again about=
 details, but even they don't lead me toward mass-like kinds from which ind=
ividuals are temporarily carved out.  Not for Lojban anyhow.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 23, 2011, at 17:33, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Sunday, 2011-10-23 at 14:15 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.c=
om>:
>=20
>> Maybe I shouldn't have made the Buddhist crack, it does complicate matte=
rs.  If=20
>> you take different times as separate worlds, then the ever-new view of d=
omains=20
>> does turn out to be like xorxes stages.  That is certainly not my intent=
ion, on=20
>> either view (though the problem doesn't arise on the always-same view) [=
I=20
>> actually tend to be a nominalist in a rather strict sense and so closer =
to Hans'=20
>> discourse representation, which never officially gets behind the words. =
But that=20
>> is not relevant here.]  But given that alway-new sense and taking times =
as=20
>> worlds, your description of the situation is essentially correct (and it=
s vague=20
>> feeling of absurdity is one of the problems with that interpretation).  =
The=20
>> connection between the two sets of albatrosses is not merely anaphora, b=
ut=20
>> something involving vectors in time or some such analogy - "world lines"=
 is a=20
>> nice cover term (which, alas, also seem to reify the connections -- an o=
ld=20
>> problem for Buddhists, too).  Of course, "here now" does cut things down=
 to=20
>> existents, pretty sharply (I suppose someone could argue, .... .  But wh=
y=20
>> bother?). The point is that Lojban quantifiers do not add "and exists", =
ever. =20
>> That comes out of the predicates, if at all.  As to whether the former f=
lying=20
>> albatrosses are flying now, that is hard to say (partly because it is un=
clear=20
>> just what is being asked); in some cases they are in the current domain =
of=20
>> discourse and in the extensions of both "albatross" and "flying", but it=
 is not=20
>> clear whether the current domain of discourse is tightly correlated with=
 "now". =20
>> And, of course, there is no rule that requires either the always-new=20
>> interpretation of things nor the worlds view of time.  There are advanta=
ges and=20
>> disadvantages to all of these choices.
>>=20
>> A reasonable view (except for the=20
>> complexities that spelling it out exactly involves) is that each world e=
xtends=20
>> through time, with things coming into existence and falling out as time =
goes=20
>> along, i.e., that our world is a typical world.  The formal gains of dev=
iating=20
>> from this view have to be pretty impressive to justify shifting from it.=
  On=20
>> that view, the ten minutes ago's flying albatrosses still exist (most of=
 them=20
>> anyhow usually) but are no longer flying (the ones we can see, anyhow) a=
nd they=20
>> did look funny and so contribute to the general claim that flying albatr=
osses=20
>> look funny, even though they now look quite sedate -- largely because th=
ey are=20
>> not flying.
>=20
> But the point was that we needed all flying albatrosses to satisfy "is
> flying" at a single time for the (ii) interpretation of {lo} to work.
> I thought you were claiming this.
>=20
> If you're not... I'm relieved!
>=20
> What you wrote from "A reasonable view" on seems to agree with the
> kind of universe I'd been assuming (i.e. that of Montague's PTQ).
>=20
> So do we agree that (i), or your generalised arbitrary-partition version
> (is), is needed to do kinds-like things with {lo} (assuming we want to
> avoid introducing xorxes-kinds)?
>=20
> Martin

--=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.