Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:58464)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxDRlar1BBoEOZS_ng@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RJk8x-00011p-Nc; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:45 -0700
Received: by wwg7 with SMTP id 7sf6836248wwg.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:28 -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;
        bh=3DZylNkm/C0bne+TEEMl5R4S/4J/SODbJ0H+GQpdZc4=;
        b=PHAMIMGkRMWvRl3TpBgKUyVeaFE8uNIPXyltr4tBK2o5z4UoVR0/bILO+BW6Fxw9ny
         tmwNyBDA5/yr8ZtqkFruHCQnm5oTKymNXB/A5Ve3dJjrDaxRzcWLXUe/qJconjUmUdk0
         xz4Yjf5LjrV8F/BUUPNcEzpfOPUXNp4uRTcJw=
Received: by 10.216.132.207 with SMTP id o57mr47115wei.10.1319799505631;
        Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.227.144.203 with SMTP id a11ls6852182wbv.1.gmail; Fri, 28 Oct
 2011 03:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.60.149 with SMTP id p21mr182446wbh.0.1319799504491;
        Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.60.149 with SMTP id p21mr182445wbh.0.1319799504457;
        Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id es13si4347375wbb.3.2011.10.28.03.58.24
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.42;
Received: by wwn22 with SMTP id 22so2127605wwn.1
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.60.131 with SMTP id p3mr3495847wbh.4.1319799504224;
        Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.81] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.76.177])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eu16sm14839043wbb.7.2011.10.28.03.58.22
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EAA8AC9.2010000@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:58:17 +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: <20111023213304.GA3230@gonzales>	<C988BE8A-398C-43F4-AE98-C0A1DF39C829@yahoo.com>	<20111024151402.GA3062@gonzales>	<4EA5ACD4.4030106@gmail.com>	<20111024184651.GC3062@gonzales>	<4EA5F890.6070501@gmail.com>	<20111025002558.GA27114@gonzales>	<4EA60BBC.1040707@gmail.com>	<20111025021504.GB27114@gonzales>	<4EA68224.1080406@gmail.com>	<20111026033114.GB3119@gonzales>	<4EA7BF06.5050103@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EA7BF06.5050103@gmail.com>
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 74.125.82.42 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: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------080102040201060508010208"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080102040201060508010208
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Martin Bays, On 26/10/2011 04:31:
 > * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 10:32 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com <ma=
ilto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>:
 >> Martin Bays, On 25/10/2011 03:15:
 >>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 02:07 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com <=
mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>:
 >>> If Lion X is equal to Lion Y, then they satisfy the same predicates. S=
o
 >>> 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 w=
e
 >>> must agree that there are at least two lions. Right?
 >>
 >> So not one lion that changes its name and dietary preferences?
 >
 > The use of the present tense was intended to rule that out.

But you will presumably also say that the definition of {cinfo} also specif=
ied criteria for distinguishing between two stages of the same lion and sta=
ges of two different lions, and that the distinction cannot be left lingust=
ically unencoded.

 > OK. So in John's lion-hunting context, after his having shot the left
 > lion, you'd say "lo pa cinfo noi zu'a se cmene zo samantas.uu cu zu'a
 > morsi gi'e ku'i ri'u pu'o zi gunta .ii mi'o"?
 >
 > I can see that John might be dangerously confused. Perhaps there are
 > sound evolutionary reasons for natural language making sharper
 > distinctions between lions and Lion than you seem to want lojban to?

Speakers should make the distinctions when necessary, using the resources o=
f the language. When being approached by lions, it is especially important =
to know their spetial distribution. In other contexts, such as the daily li=
on, there is no such need to agonize over whether they're all the same lion=
. For other predicates, e.g. Barbie ("We both got given Barbie for Christma=
s") and Father Christmas ("F. C. has a white beard"), identity criteria are=
 more insensitive to spatial distribution.

 > Is it arbitrary to treat Obama as a single entity but lions as multiple
 > entities? Does it involve treating time differently from space? To an
 > extent, I suppose it does - at least, I don't see a wholly coherent way
 > to rationalise the counting by reference to just the topology of the
 > subset of space-time at which there is Obama or Lion or whatever. But in
 > a language that's meant to be speakable by humans, I don't find time vs
 > space asymmetry too objectionable.

Rather than "speakable by humans" I think you mean "speakable by Martin". B=
ut anyway, I think that when one thinks about how to implement your vision =
of lojban, assuming it's agreed that it should be able to express world-vvi=
ews other than your own, the solution would accommodate equally well the vi=
ews of all participants in this discussion. For every current predicate wit=
h X places, there will be X * Y new predicates, where Y is the number of se=
ts of criteria for discriminating between individuals (i.e. for deciding, g=
iven F(a) and F(b), whether or not a=3Db). Now it's hard to see how these e=
xtra predicates could be achieved other than by the use of appropriate cmav=
o dedicated to the purpose. And in that case, the way of both lojban and co=
mmon sense would be to stipulate that when the individuative cmavo are omit=
ted, the semantic criteria for individuating are unexpressed. Thus, the ver=
sion with individuative cmavo used would allow you to express what you want=
 to express,=20
while the version witouth individuative cmavo used would express how things=
 are in me and xorxes's vision.

--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.


--------------080102040201060508010208
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    <p>Martin Bays, On 26/10/2011 04:31:<br>
      &gt; * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 10:32 +0100 - And Rosta&lt;<a
        href="mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
      &gt;&gt; Martin Bays, On 25/10/2011 03:15:<br>
      &gt;&gt;&gt; * Tuesday, 2011-10-25 at 02:07 +0100 - And Rosta&lt;<a
        href="mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
      &gt;&gt;&gt; If Lion X is equal to Lion Y, then they satisfy the
      same predicates. So<br>
      &gt;&gt;&gt; if we can agree that Lion X is called Nigel while
      Lion Y is called<br>
      &gt;&gt;&gt; Samantha, or if X likes to eat gazelles while Y
      prefers humans, then we<br>
      &gt;&gt;&gt; must agree that there are at least two lions. Right?<br>
      &gt;&gt;<br>
      &gt;&gt; So not one lion that changes its name and dietary
      preferences?<br>
      &gt;<br>
      &gt; The use of the present tense was intended to rule that out.</p>
    <p>But you will presumably also say that the definition of {cinfo}
      also specified criteria for distinguishing between two stages of
      the same lion and stages of two different lions, and that the
      distinction cannot be left lingustically unencoded.</p>
    <p>&gt; OK. So in John's lion-hunting context, after his having shot
      the left<br>
      &gt; lion, you'd say "lo pa cinfo noi zu'a se cmene zo samantas.uu
      cu zu'a<br>
      &gt; morsi gi'e ku'i ri'u pu'o zi gunta .ii mi'o"?<br>
      &gt;<br>
      &gt; I can see that John might be dangerously confused. Perhaps
      there are<br>
      &gt; sound evolutionary reasons for natural language making
      sharper<br>
      &gt; distinctions between lions and Lion than you seem to want
      lojban to?</p>
    <p>Speakers should make the distinctions when necessary, using the
      resources of the language. When being approached by lions, it is
      especially important to know their spetial distribution. In other
      contexts, such as the daily lion, there is no such need to agonize
      over whether they're all the same lion. For other predicates, e.g.
      Barbie ("We both got given Barbie for Christmas") and Father
      Christmas ("F. C. has a white beard"), identity criteria are more
      insensitive to spatial distribution.</p>
    <p>&gt; Is it arbitrary to treat Obama as a single entity but lions
      as multiple<br>
      &gt; entities? Does it involve treating time differently from
      space? To an<br>
      &gt; extent, I suppose it does - at least, I don't see a wholly
      coherent way<br>
      &gt; to rationalise the counting by reference to just the topology
      of the<br>
      &gt; subset of space-time at which there is Obama or Lion or
      whatever. But in<br>
      &gt; a language that's meant to be speakable by humans, I don't
      find time vs<br>
      &gt; space asymmetry too objectionable.</p>
    <p>Rather than "speakable by humans" I think you mean "speakable by
      Martin". But anyway, I think that when one thinks about how to
      implement your vision of lojban, assuming it's agreed that it
      should be able to express world-vviews other than your own, the
      solution would accommodate equally well the views of all
      participants in this discussion. For every current predicate with
      X places, there will be X * Y new predicates, where Y is the number
      of sets of criteria for discriminating between individuals (i.e.
      for deciding, given F(a) and F(b), whether or not a=b). Now it's
      hard to see how these extra predicates could be achieved other
      than by the use of appropriate cmavo dedicated to the purpose. And
      in that case, the way of both lojban and common sense would be to
      stipulate that when the individuative cmavo are omitted, the
      semantic criteria for individuating are unexpressed. Thus, the
      version with individuative cmavo used would allow you to express
      what you want to express, while the version witouth individuative
      cmavo used would express how things are in me and xorxes's vision.<br>
    </p>
    <p>--And.<br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.<br />



--------------080102040201060508010208--