Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:34579)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDO3Jf1BBoEdkA2hg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RITWa-0007b3-Gv; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:46 -0700
Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24sf13077933wyg.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=N+DRd0Z0iQvgcCvJJZAl30ypgFB3ir91JbUbCPghwPg=;
        b=aH3FYMpIL5nUcLI4nWMkOW+hhTCpBYA1vIAlqTA2yQk2oFMf8arTm7lkUfpUtUHwbt
         fFdosiPzPPJ3fjleGNbJJpxucG2u7cdFrNxgS63aghsgzpiR+u3VsPkidoZD53E/cO7d
         qX07xQuBr0NiLquniEKl/DWPkfY9i1NfUlVak=
Received: by 10.216.138.36 with SMTP id z36mr1000916wei.12.1319497294352;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.216.223.79 with SMTP id u57ls12391wep.2.gmail; Mon, 24 Oct
 2011 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.160.68 with SMTP id t46mr24720wek.9.1319497293444;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.160.68 with SMTP id t46mr24719wek.9.1319497293428;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com (mail-wy0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t38si8899539wbo.2.2011.10.24.16.01.33
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.174;
Received: by mail-wy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 36so6718042wyg.19
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.132.134 with SMTP id o6mr3748711wei.93.1319497293255;
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.75] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ei16sm41656830wbb.21.2011.10.24.16.01.29
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EA5EE47.8050600@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:01:27 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
References: <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> <20111020011903.GF5010@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111020011903.GF5010@gonzales>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.174 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

Martin Bays, On 20/10/2011 02:19:
> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 21:27 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>> Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 06:11:
>>> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 04:59 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>=
:
>>>> 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.
>
> What use is a logical form if we don't know what it means? How is that
> an improvement on unprocessed lojban?

You may not know *exactly* what the logical form means, but communicatively=
 that is far better than not even knowing for sure what the logical form is=
.

>> 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
>
> I'm not so sure I agree that it can't, actually. Of course it depends
> exactly what you mean by (B). I take it to mean a notion of satisfaction
> for the logic in question, i.e. a way of telling whether a sentence is
> true in a given model, where we allow some things to be handled by
> pragmatics (a separate module wherein all ambiguity lies, and which is
> less likely to be susceptible to clear and definite description). So
> e.g. (B) is complete for the formal logics logicians talk about (with no
> pragmatic component).
>
> Completing (B) for lojban is clearly a non-trivial task, and we may well
> find that we're better off settling for a partial solution (e.g. which
> assumes boolean truth values, and so doesn't really handle {jei}) than
> a complete one... but I don't see any obvious reason for considering it
> impossible.

If you declare that the stuff that can be done falls under (B) and the stuf=
f that can't be done falls under Pragmatics, defined in effect as the bits =
of B that can't be done, then you're right by definition.

>> -- and partly because speakers with different views on the nature of
>> the universe ought still to be able to speak the same language.
>
> That seems reasonable only if "nature of the universe" is understood in
> its everyday sense, rather than the technical logical sense we're
> talking about here.
>
> Or at least, which I'm talking about here. I'm not entirely sure that
> we're not talking at cross-purposes. In the case of Chierchia's kinds
> (which I'm mostly identifying with xorxes', modulo his domain-switching
> addition), it's fairly clear: he has us adding to the universe for each
> (sufficiently regular) expressible unary predicate a new entity, in
> a new sort over which some but not all quantifications range. Whether we
> have such is clearly a question of the setup of the logic. I don't know
> whether the same applies to your types.

Speakers should be able to call upon their own logic, i.e. the logic their =
own model of the universe operates under, without making communication impo=
ssible. One of ensuring perfect communication is to limit the things speake=
rs can try to communicate, but I think it's better to do without the limits=
 and the perfection.

>>>>> 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?
>
> Well, I understood him as agreeing with Chierchia that for certain
> predicates, like x1 of "is in", kind predication always ends up being
> equivalent (switching domains as necessary) existential quantification
> over instances of the kind - as in the "lions are in my garden" example.
> If your kinds don't have instances, presumably you don't agree with
> this!

I'm still not clear what the diagnostic question is.

>>>> 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.
>
> But then it seems more that you're talking about forking the language
> into multiple sublanguages, with the gadri you use as the only
> indication as to which language you're using.

No, just talking about expanding the lexicon and the range of semantic spac=
e it addresses.

>> 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)
>
> They are? Potentially or actually?

Actually.

> With what "logical form"?

That's still being discovered.

>> 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.
>
> Well, plenty of people want the language to be better-specified than it
> is. I'm not sure how to view this push to specification if not as a push
> towards (B).

As a push towards (A), obviously. The specification that the plenty of want=
 is of (A). Which is not to say some of them wouldn't like (B) if it was on=
 offer.

--And.

--=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.