Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:53518) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RIgMC-0003rP-0Q; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:44:00 -0700 Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30sf582267qyk.16 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:43:45 -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; bh=z4NvxpfX2MsSvyRvM+c6YFrFKE1m3UWMfTUSfTXgatc=; b=T9yGZYV1ZrWMVoA0TCkkbF48qkqKUORl/92s5m3g7YrhzcTOseWs/7yqdb9Q2/F1M9 7zOZe7jHT5b4s8f+L8Ls/DdAZ+eS5TNhlFoLeZ7BzXdfadOYZ7cP83Nub111An3geoDD xDYxTVnV1i3n6yl9u+p8EF0p4TOxzUPWt52Sg= Received: by 10.229.216.141 with SMTP id hi13mr1328652qcb.3.1319546622944; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:43:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.24.163 with SMTP id v3ls12327110vdf.3.gmail; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.30.195 with SMTP id u3mr26454778vdh.3.1319546622346; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.30.195 with SMTP id u3mr26454777vdh.3.1319546622334; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm10-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com. [98.139.53.194]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id b8si6363648vdu.2.2011.10.25.05.43.42; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.53.194 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.53.194; Received: from [98.139.52.193] by nm10.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2011 12:43:42 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.153] by tm6.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2011 12:43:42 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1036.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2011 12:43:42 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 169486.24609.bm@omp1036.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 34441 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2011 12:43:41 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: WfOSjCUVM1lfFxUbRhE0p0qAA1lLu.gHvLcLE0ENOCg45hz qeRY2HzkpoqzW9V075PRs9ijMk5ciNq7F8Mo1jinO1.ymnIMyX69SapFjsRQ OkpG5QIggaJZQ3tdD6X2GtdfOq7OENkqWeAj9tJzrp_r.xRd6bESDs3VLXQ7 9X2lCJZ9PPB6ElNnQHtLmAQafpJvxx8uBdHOARIs2.Igm5g25wwOZoV5Lqy3 yBbh8RDHECUS2JtdweqgbRo6iemkthdfjZHnOe7FgWrr2NJP4DL5rTnvMkyh 7.ln9hjGRjnBCbi76B_Hs2_wfY_R36W5Rc_NJT41R8.VQia7JQeqLI_IglBB jn_k9WA6bTYoDnUmEwZLVggP6bdduNLv.PZo4B7abMYmNYnLN1H3po4Mw6jk aQYI7eY3Allw8BA0n8wRn1iWf5dbnOOxTczxGlxeFA8o3MOFSFgkx6i1E7XV 2j4gWig.k9LdWdegTGvJ91gMhly8Dmpj1OSacCm4hr.2vVXcHNTIDKz8.yBi tiRBBXLs6 X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie) by smtp104-mob.biz.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Oct 2011 05:43:39 -0700 PDT References: <20111013043308.GD3367@gonzales> <4E981179.1030805@gmail.com> <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> <1319077342.88005.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4EA5EF1A.9060501@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EA5EF1A.9060501@gmail.com> X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4) Message-Id: <9F4FD85D-AA91-4437-B4A4-F255BF4B7918@yahoo.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4) From: "John E. Clifford" X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_10714981_AHjHjkQAAJH4TqXvKA3+ngEGBEI Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 08:57:36 -0400 To: "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 98.139.53.194 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: 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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Well, I'm not sure about most, but the ones that do are ambiguous, by definition. Sent from my iPad On Oct 24, 2011, at 19:04, And Rosta wrote: > John E Clifford, On 20/10/2011 03:22: >> Odd notion of ambiguity which doesn't occur but still presents a sentence which >> is both true and false. > > What's odd? You don't think there's such a thing as an unambiguous sentence that can be true or false depending on the proposition it's taken to express? Don't most sentences fall into that category? > > --And. > >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: And Rosta >> To: lojban@googlegroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 3:27:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural >> variable >> >> Martin Bays, On 19/10/2011 06:11: >>> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 04:59 +0100 - And Rosta: >>> >>>> Martin Bays, On 18/10/2011 04:26: >>>>>>>> For example, {na ku lo cinfo cu zvati lo mi purdi} >>>>>>>> has at least the two following meanings in terms of actual lions: >>>>>>>> 1. {lo cinfo} is interpreted as a plurality of mundane lions, giving >>>>>>>> roughly: >>>>>>>> For L some (contextually relevant) lions: \not in(L, my garden) >>>>>>>> (which probably means that there exists a lion among L which is not in >>>>>>>> my garden) >>>>>>>> 2. {lo cinfo} is interpreted as the kind Lions, giving >>>>>>>> \not in(Lions, my garden) >>>>>>>> which is then resolved existentially, giving >>>>>>>> \not \exists l:lion(l). in(l, my garden) . >>>>>> Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that English seems to allow only >>>>>> reading (2), and that the same might go for Lojban. >>>>> Ah! Have {lo} *only* able to get kinds, you mean? >>>> Yes. With anything that looks like a 'mundane' reconceived as a kind. >>> >>> So how would you rule out interpretation 1 in the above? >> >> By whatever rules out "it is not the case that Obama is in my garden" or "it is >> not the case that chlorine is in my garden" from being true in a circumstance in >> which some (but not all) Obama/chlorine is in my garden. I suppose the principle >> is that referents are treated as atoms rather than as complexes some bits of >> which do broda and other bits of which don't necessarily broda; but I'm really >> only thinking aloud in saying this. >> >>>>> The "temporal stages of Obama" example could be dealt with by >>>>> intepreting Obama as the kind 'Obama-stages', I agree, but it could also >>>>> be dealt with just by using tenses. I'm not sure how to deal with "an >>>>> unusually exuberant Obama"... but since it's a rare construction, a hack >>>>> like transforming it to "Obama, who was unusually exuberant" would seem >>>>> reasonable. >>>> >>>> The point is that English does allow restrictive modification of >>>> _Obama_, so does recognize subtypes of Obama. >>> >>> "It was the exuberant Obama who spoke today rather than the dour Obama >>> we're used to"? That kind of thing? The hacky solution still seems >>> reasonable. >> >> That kind of thing, yes. A hacky solution may or may not be reasonable, but >> legitimate justifications for seeking a hackysolution do not include the alleged >> absence of this phenomenon from natural language. >> >>>>> So if I choose to omit kinds from my universe but otherwise use the same >>>>> rules, I am likely to be misunderstood by a kind-using lojbanist, even >>>>> if I avoid using lV. Xorxes just gave a nice example, the other way >>>>> round: {mi zukte da poi do zukte} makes a sense with kinds that it >>>>> doesn't without them. >>>> >>>> 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. 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 -- and partly because speakers with different views on the >> nature of the universe ought still to be able to speak the same language. >> >>>>> 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? >> >>>> 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. >> >>>>>> The objections to that are that it is metaphysically biased, >>>>> >>>>> Why is that a problem? >>>> >>>> Avoidance of metaphysical bias was one of Lojban's aims. A fairly >>>> obvious and sensible one, since the language should not tell the >>>> speaker how the universe is, but rather should allow the speaker to >>>> describe how the speaker thinks the universe is. >>> >>> This seems to be in direct competition with an aim of lojban with which >>> I'm more familiar, namely that it be well-specified. Having a thorough >>> model-theoretic formal semantics seems to me an important part of >>> satisfying that aim - and it would involve specifying a metaphysics (by >>> your definition of metaphysics). >> >> 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) 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. >> >>>>>>>> "Not every mammal gives birth to live young" -- false for kinds, true >>>>>>>> for mundanes; but that doesn't mean "mammal" is ambiguous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you'd say the statement is simply false, with the kind 'porcupines' >>>>>>> as a witness? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand the question. >>>>> >>>>> Does every mammal give birth to live young? >>>> >>>> At the species level yes (afaik), at the organism level no. >>> >>> And yet 'mammal' wasn't ambiguous? What in the question was? >> >> Nothing. It's not ambiguous. I mean it's not technically linguistically >> ambiguous. In the more general sense of being susceptible to multiple distinct >> interpretations, it is of course ambiguous, and the ambiguity has to do with >> which mammals there are in the universe of discourse. >> >> --And. >> > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.