Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:36562) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RIgSj-0003u7-M6; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:50:45 -0700 Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30sf600901qyk.16 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:50:31 -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=NjIGEZc1bJjcdB+3X3D8VUfbCSQ2GP4DHW28ckWilao=; b=BKOqeI7Qn4MgCZDsILMqduHu0kDUXwKI6bq/g2EcyRrFpGkwt4hve04GMBJCwkt7y+ hEb5H5vjyHyIdBNdo7eZAnck9p9lczlVSJaf+VL4DdF/qEvvxUdtRHs+I27IDsVMZDC+ fsFMmiVKPLGIPxTPkfLF6fqY3kmt2Pk5EST5c= Received: by 10.229.47.193 with SMTP id o1mr1334973qcf.19.1319547028652; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.107.232 with SMTP id hf8ls7355105vdb.0.gmail; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.88.164 with SMTP id bh4mr26543334vdb.8.1319547027938; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.88.164 with SMTP id bh4mr26543331vdb.8.1319547027931; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm13.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm13.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com. [98.139.212.172]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id cn4si10280232vdb.3.2011.10.25.05.50.27; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.212.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.212.172; Received: from [98.139.215.142] by nm13.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2011 12:50:27 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.242] by tm13.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2011 12:50:27 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1051.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Oct 2011 12:50:27 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 500397.79611.bm@omp1051.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 62398 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2011 12:50:27 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: Gdwyl3kVM1lIzVGyboOuaZP68krEiXx7ecVFXGQ7cdcY.YZ h2X.Ucwclghg1vegyl9DOv0L2GUdrBdSeAnBFDD0PLUTO4ElgzaEBVn58mS0 g.mFBndqCT.iJ7RzLv6gmUmwTy1AQxg7kSFA.nrHKxIUBmr.4dfaB8Zc4ZUW S12QHFa.RiotCgAbrjeCof3ZurA736WwIYz0chgZrdBLk.erEYPjMo2VCfXC OvPQIkH1MZMXMQrW4.Pgc6l2G9UaKNZ7iPiWIGCWDJnj5nG5oxwmKueltAJO a4bXpBm5dZciTLOTbLVm10DtKbiIEEmn8nYyHhvNYyimJlUfuKQanvvFSxIP 8FQmmJHKHZeHQb6zfqi7z7Y6NMSfLqfk4mnww.vPR.YT7RBl8NT8tunRp.OW mJAqXLK98UBSbNtZkbiYoPhI49_Ogu2pNsKLY9dCKi53qq57.a.Avp.3weDB 1zml20I2uQDsCAI500lPmE0SrRdN4XajvoQ4na7MpjgRG0wnFgQ-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie) by smtp108-mob.biz.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Oct 2011 05:50:26 -0700 PDT References: <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> <20111024151402.GA3062@gonzales> <4EA5ACD4.4030106@gmail.com> <20111024184651.GC3062@gonzales> <4EA5F890.6070501@gmail.com> <20111025002558.GA27114@gonzales> <4EA60BBC.1040707@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EA60BBC.1040707@gmail.com> X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4) Message-Id: <34E48F58-22FA-4546-A448-51BB53D7DC69@yahoo.com> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4) From: "John E. Clifford" X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_10719887_AHjHjkQAAWdSTqYLzAMvW1Ld5ik Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:04:25 -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 98.139.212.172 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / If you can only count up to one lion, I am not going lion hunting with you.= The chances of being seriously outnumbered (in some, to you perverse, way= ) are too great. I say that, if there is a lion on the left and one on the= right, there are two lions, not one, and it's going to take at least two b= ullets to get rid of them. Sent from my iPad On Oct 24, 2011, at 21:07, And Rosta wrote: > Martin Bays, On 25/10/2011 01:25: >> * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 00:45 +0100 - And Rosta: >>=20 >>> Martin Bays, On 24/10/2011 19:46: >>>> * Monday, 2011-10-24 at 19:22 +0100 - And Rosta: >>>>=20 >>>>> 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 f= or >>>>>>> nothing other than things of the ordinary sort. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I seem to be in agreement. But I guess no-one else is, so far. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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 o= f >>>>> referents of {la}, and also pronouns like {mi, do}, and that these >>>>> biggest bunches are treated like individuals. >>>>=20 >>>> This last - reification of bunches as individuals - is the only point = of >>>> disagreement I would consider key. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > Encouragingly, then, I think we're in agreement here. >=20 >> (Note that a quantity of water is an individual, not a bunch of >> subquantities of water.) >>=20 >>>> Of course I wouldn't claim that there is one fixed universe of discour= se >>>> within which all lojban expressions must be interpreted. >>>>=20 >>>> I would consider it perverse for you to make what appears to be genera= l >>>> statement about lions, and yet have only one or a few lions in your >>>> universe for the statement to apply to. But that's because I would onl= y >>>> accept lions, and not the kind 'lions', as lions. >>>=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. >>=20 >> But unless you're being *really* perverse, we don't actually disagree on >> how many lions there are, just on what the phrase "how many lions there >> are" means. >=20 > No, I do mean we disagree on how many lions there are. Or rather, we disa= gree on criteria for deciding how many lions there are -- especially on cri= teria 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. >=20 > I think the criteria for counting lions should be left up to the individu= al speaker's personal theory of lion-counting; it's not for Lojban to presc= ribe a particular theory of lion-counting. However, I also think it could b= e good for Lojban to lexicalize a number of different basic criteria for co= unting things, so that speakers may be linguistically explicit about their = preferred lion-counting theory. >=20 > --And. >=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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?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.