Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:65510)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDTxZb1BBoERacd4A@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RIOUu-0005bd-Hc; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:50 -0700
Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30sf7393254qyk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:33 -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=aWIl1tWmzGQz3r3nr2Nmw7MMSM7C0+p1L43tCfmSnz0=;
        b=3pgsDwVy4F8i5pdfrWhE0XwSfhUfArFuvNNixeC4TC3vaXK3nn0VnxiRltRcDSzJ3N
         7080tJJ2uFtj2XCUUdsMNQDA8ybJXMMaoMg+p+c/KbcR2G/t5cPqSeap+gKJ0vLlwakp
         SFEB7LzObrDXTxkchB0Mv9uVybxysygwWPyYA=
Received: by 10.229.71.220 with SMTP id i28mr1208140qcj.5.1319477971309;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.229.117.197 with SMTP id s5ls13887056qcq.3.gmail; Mon, 24 Oct
 2011 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.120.2 with SMTP id o2mr42074442yhh.5.1319477970467;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.120.2 with SMTP id o2mr42074440yhh.5.1319477970457;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.229.33])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id c5si285030ybc.3.2011.10.24.10.39.30;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.229.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.229.33;
Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2011 17:39:29 -0000
Received: from [98.138.89.167] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2011 17:39:29 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2011 17:39:29 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 919798.32022.bm@omp1023.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 84520 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2011 17:39:29 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: k09JQBwVM1mnyI_murkI2R6K6wnhU6BkSoG_IWYQOVtprL5
 4WzMWce7Y14QIJloCeeV18Oc8F4hafA_19x71SPLZbXfnrqUhaJ3bBAXzEBH
 pPdOTRLEn.BoMZWZnPQPH7Ldh4zEsk0JUtUxecscvm2_YtDZX83XwrHlKOW3
 DXaPSLYagWOA2e.SnVMb9AKCfbsmJmPQv9VTiie9APptdrUppY5uBLzzDKYG
 vXPKRFxZqEpyB980GanQrEYW4Ct7W8cLvIibWZDbpOr8ZiQKy.PzNgepxCQ.
 dv5dCXr2VU74np6DOVa2FYo_hfenqMK4lWGQ5.p61o1FYy2pezPQ3WSGPI_4
 jeBkBaqIteqj5961ywF0hhLJ5njGTN52YT3I_94ErGdblDGOsIW1YH7nlRPM
 12VOrh28UoGFRGntQS5G_e2f9VpqNrIeUnwWg3DnElIoqBN3k_scrwMFl3Sd
 MDjFusxOccQ5t92dD_zx1POm8NBvTQvotYtreStfHYlX7d7VC4bMqqwbMTuu
 BktCgxskoMGpb.9ViQiI-
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g-
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie)
        by smtp101-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2011 10:39:29 -0700 PDT
References: <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> <C988BE8A-398C-43F4-AE98-C0A1DF39C829@yahoo.com> <20111024151402.GA3062@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111024151402.GA3062@gonzales>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <491E2B09-A98B-406D-B7A4-CC2710BEF850@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_10700220_AHvHjkQAAD/9TqWCeAwCSlUarx0
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:53:24 -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 98.138.229.33
 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: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

English is a bitch language for pre vision work, so I am still not perfectl=
y what your point or question is.  So let me say again: the referents of {l=
o vofli cipnralbatrossa} are all flying albatrosses, some of them existing =
now and some of these flying now, but most nonflying current albatrosses an=
d and past and future ones.  They are in the current domain of discourse an=
d in the corresponding extensions of "albatross" and "flying" (time labeled=
) but not generally in the extension of "exists"(although there is a long d=
iscussion about that, which I think my notion of domain resolves).  Does th=
at answer your question and agree with your point?

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 24, 2011, at 11:14, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * Sunday, 2011-10-23 at 18:57 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.=
com>:
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> The issue was simply whether, in {lo vofli cipnralbatrossa cu xajmi}, we
> have
> (a) a bunch of things, which is at some time a bunch of flying
> albatrosses
> or (b) a bunch of things each of which are at some time flying
> albatrosses.
>=20
> If {lo broda} has to get a bunch which satisfies {broda} (this is what
> "(ii)" referred to), it seems we're forced to (a), which is no use for
> making general statements.
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> I seem to be in agreement. But I guess no-one else is, so far.
>=20
> Martin
>=20
>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 17:33, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>=20
>>> * Sunday, 2011-10-23 at 14:15 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo=
.com>:
>>>=20
>>>> Maybe I shouldn't have made the Buddhist crack, it does complicate mat=
ters.  If=20
>>>> you take different times as separate worlds, then the ever-new view of=
 domains=20
>>>> does turn out to be like xorxes stages.  That is certainly not my inte=
ntion, 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 close=
r 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 time=
s as=20
>>>> worlds, your description of the situation is essentially correct (and =
its 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,=
 but=20
>>>> something involving vectors in time or some such analogy - "world line=
s" is a=20
>>>> nice cover term (which, alas, also seem to reify the connections -- an=
 old=20
>>>> problem for Buddhists, too).  Of course, "here now" does cut things do=
wn to=20
>>>> existents, pretty sharply (I suppose someone could argue, .... .  But =
why=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=
 flying=20
>>>> albatrosses are flying now, that is hard to say (partly because it is =
unclear=20
>>>> just what is being asked); in some cases they are in the current domai=
n 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 wi=
th "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 advan=
tages 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=
 extends=20
>>>> through time, with things coming into existence and falling out as tim=
e goes=20
>>>> along, i.e., that our world is a typical world.  The formal gains of d=
eviating=20
>>>> from this view have to be pretty impressive to justify shifting from i=
t.  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)=
 and they=20
>>>> did look funny and so contribute to the general claim that flying alba=
trosses=20
>>>> look funny, even though they now look quite sedate -- largely because =
they 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 versio=
n
>>> (is), is needed to do kinds-like things with {lo} (assuming we want to
>>> avoid introducing xorxes-kinds)?
>>>=20
>>> Martin
>>=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

--=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.