Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]:54602) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RIdUn-0002Wm-6T; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:40:38 -0700 Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24sf555149wyg.16 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:40:25 -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=VdbRsAgLqUV47zQn7S5FgQPJ0RO8xdyUSZJ4MiNQiVg=; b=K1TTVtaVAxZZc0xZ1hBWRSaxBo9jRgxT8ZXwnahbfTTOXjNt7wx98Zu+FzKNQMUj3+ cfvs5JB0aNrARKYcw+ecKrOALYEXOZE1+dcpqQTuuBTb2DTH5zt7ZvBVEsBJb25/9bNQ jjQWkp8LXI5DFaN5fgYaBrYc9zQN6HgFt3lEQ= Received: by 10.216.4.155 with SMTP id 27mr1518766wej.18.1319535148961; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.38.21 with SMTP id z21ls20331736wbd.2.gmail; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.204.149 with SMTP id fm21mr141742wbb.3.1319535145398; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.204.149 with SMTP id fm21mr141741wbb.3.1319535145379; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k17si6551480wbo.1.2011.10.25.02.32.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.44; Received: by wwe6 with SMTP id 6so330978wwe.25 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.57.67 with SMTP id b3mr2463753wbh.9.1319535144952; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:24 -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 h9sm2228687wbp.14.2011.10.25.02.32.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4EA68224.1080406@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:32:20 +0100 From: And Rosta 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: <20111023203658.GH28229@gonzales> <1319404501.57946.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111023213304.GA3230@gonzales> <20111024151402.GA3062@gonzales> <4EA5ACD4.4030106@gmail.com> <20111024184651.GC3062@gonzales> <4EA5F890.6070501@gmail.com> <20111025002558.GA27114@gonzales> <4EA60BBC.1040707@gmail.com> <20111025021504.GB27114@gonzales> In-Reply-To: <20111025021504.GB27114@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 74.125.82.44 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: 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; 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 25/10/2011 03:15: > * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 02:07 +0100 - And Rosta: > >> Martin Bays, On 25/10/2011 01:25: >>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 00:45 +0100 - And Rosta: >>> >>>> Martin Bays, On 24/10/2011 19:46: >>>>> * Monday, 2011-10-24 at 19:22 +0100 - And Rosta: >>>>> >>>>>> Martin Bays, On 24/10/2011 16:14: >>>>>>> * Sunday, 2011-10-23 at 18:57 -0400 - John E. Clifford: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I seem to be in agreement. But I guess no-one else is, so far. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think me and xorxes disagree with you and John. If there is >>>>>> disagreement, it is over how many are in the biggest bunches. You, >>>>>> I gather, would say that there is only one possible cardinality for >>>>>> the biggest bunch of broda, whereas xorxes and I would say that the >>>>>> universe, or universe of discourse, can be understood in infinitely >>>>>> many different ways, such that across these different ways the >>>>>> cardinality for the biggest bunch of broda varies from one to >>>>>> infinity. I think xorxes and me would also say that this holds also = of >>>>>> referents of {la}, and also pronouns like {mi, do}, and that these >>>>>> biggest bunches are treated like individuals. >>>>> >>>>> This last - reification of bunches as individuals - is the only point= of >>>>> disagreement I would consider key. >>>> >>>> Would you say that the referents of la& do are always treated like >>>> individuals? Or that when the referents are individuals they're >>>> treated as individuals and when the referents are bunches they're >>>> treated as bunches? If the latter, then we might still agree. >>> >>> I think the referent of any term, {la foob} and {do} included, is >>> a bunch. There are minimal ("atomic") bunches, i.e. ones with no >>> subbunches other than the bunch itself - we can call these individuals. >>> We can say that a bunch is a bunch of the individuals which are its >>> minimal subbunches. >> >> Encouragingly, then, I think we're in agreement here. > > Surely some mistake! > > So is this all you meant by "these biggest bunches are treated like > individuals", not that you actually introduce new individuals to the (or > a second) domain to substitute for the bunches? Yes. But: > I understand xorxes as doing the latter. I think "introduce new individuals" is your way of describing using countin= g criteria that give a smaller cardinality than your favoured ones do. Coun= t the bunch one way, you get one cardinality; count it another way, you get= another cardinality, which you see as introducing new individuals. To take an example I was thinking about because of the lion discussion belo= w: Suppose that on each day of last week there was exactly one lion in my g= arden. Then, taking the week as a whole, what is the cardinality of the bun= ch of lions that were in my garden? You would want to say that it is some u= nknown number between 1 and 7, whereas xorxes and me would say it is any nu= mber between 1 and 7, tho if you know nothing more about the lion(s) then t= he numbers 1 & 7 would be the most natural choices. =20 >>>> It depends how many lions there are. You're free to think it perverse >>>> of me to think there is only one lion (-- that all lions are one and >>>> the same), just as I might think it is perverse of you to think there >>>> is only one Obama (-- that all Obamas are one and the same). Given >>>> that we may disagree how many lions and Obamas there are, it can't be >>>> reasonable to insist on our agreeing on the number of lions and Obamas >>>> as a prerequisite to us communicating in Lojban. >>> >>> But unless you're being *really* perverse, we don't actually disagree o= n >>> how many lions there are, just on what the phrase "how many lions there >>> are" means. >> >> No, I do mean we disagree on how many lions there are. Or rather, we >> disagree on criteria for deciding how many lions there are -- >> especially on criteria for deciding whether Lion X and Lion Y are the >> same or different. The disagreement isn't about what "how many lions >> there are" means. > > Now I'm not sure that you aren't being really perverse. > > If Lion X is equal to Lion Y, then they satisfy the same predicates. So > if we can agree that Lion X is called Nigel while Lion Y is called > Samantha, or if X likes to eat gazelles while Y prefers humans, then we > must agree that there are at least two lions. Right? So not one lion that changes its name and dietary preferences? > Now you might say that there is just one lion, Lion, which has an > instance which is called Samantha and has an instance which is > called Nigel. But if you claimed this in english, I would suggest > that you look up 'lion' in the dictionary, which will make it clear > that lions aren't things which have instances - they're things which > have claws. You are of course free to talk about this entity, but you > can't call it a lion, because it isn't. I think the same should go > for lojban and {cinfo}. It's part of the definition of the word > {cinfo} that an individual which cinfos is a lion, not something > which has instances which are lions. Lion certainly has claws, so there's no question of calling clawless things= lions. So, you'd say that the feature [+/-can have instances] is specified in the = semanticon for the lexical item? So, for example, Monday is [+can have inst= ances], and so is Barbie (the doll), and so is cinfo-2, that means "lion th= at can have instances". And likewise Obama can have instances, since the predicates that hold of Ob= ama as he is on Monday are not those that hold of Obama as he is on Tuesday= , but you allow us to treat these as the same Obama. But actually, what you'll want to do, I think, is say that semanticon entri= es distinguish [+/-can have instances distributed through time] from [+/-ca= n have instances distributed through space]. You'd need particles to mark sumti-places for this, though, since we'd want= four different versions of every sumti place, for each combo of the values= of the two attributes. --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.