Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.49;
Message-ID: <4EAC5B24.4000604@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:59:32 +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: <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> <4EAA8AC9.2010000@gmail.com> <20111029001437.GA5535@gonzales> <4EAC2461.4040307@gmail.com> <20111029172822.GC9385@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20111029172822.GC9385@gonzales>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@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_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

Martin Bays, On 29/10/2011 18:28:
> * Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 17:05 +0100 - And Rosta<and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>> Martin Bays, On 29/10/2011 01:14:
>>> I'm saying that the definition of {cinfo} is
>>> "x1 is a lion/[lioness] of species/breed x2", and that I wouldn't want
>>> to change this.
>>
>> We're all saying this much.
>
> If you were actually saying that Lion is a lion, it would be the meaning
> of English we were disagreeing on! So I hope you aren't.

Given that English allows us to speak of "a lion" that you would consider t=
o not count as a lion, and to speak of "an Obama" that you would not consid=
er to count as an Obama, we do seem now to be disagreeing about the meaning=
 of English. I had formerly thought that you were seeking to define Lojban =
predicates such as cinfo on the basis of a particular model of the universe=
, rather than on the basis of English, and hence that the semantics of Engl=
ish were irrelevant to the discussion.
 =20
>> We disagree on whether the definition of lionhood excludes certain
>> individuative criteria.
>
> More fundamentally, I think we disagree on whether {ko'a cinfo} means
> (for ko'a an individual) "ko'a has lionhood" or "ko'a is a lion".

I don't think that's what we disagree on. Maybe we disagree on whether ther=
e's a difference between "ko'a has lionhood" and "ko'a is a lion", for I do=
n't see a clear difference.
 =20
>>> If I understand you correctly, that does mean that I am saying what you
>>> say I'm saying.
>>
>> I was making a sincere attempt to attribute to you a view I believe
>> you do hold, but I don't think it follows from your belief that
>> {cinfo} means"x1 is a lion/[lioness] of species/breed x2".
>
> In my (perhaps naive) understanding of english, the use of "a" in
> "a lion" invokes some individuation of precisely the kind we seem to be
> arguing about; i.e. we can't use "a lion" to refer to an entity which
> can also be seen as comprising multiple lions (Banach-Tarski aside,
> please).

Well, obviously there are generics like "a lion has four legs", and then th=
ere are things like "We were talking about a lion. Which lion? The lion in =
my garden each day.", and then we can say "an angry lion erased from my con=
sciousness a calm lion" (as opposed to "an angry lion erased itself from my=
 consciousness") in situations where you would count the two lions as the s=
ame lion.

I have no hesitation in believing that English works xorxesianly -- indeed,=
 the reason I always supported xorxesianism is that it reflects the way Eng=
lish works. (I don't venture to generalize beyond English, because English =
is the only language I know better than badly.)

>>>>    >   OK. So in John's lion-hunting context, after his having shot th=
e left
>>>>    >   lion, you'd say "lo pa cinfo noi zu'a se cmene zo samantas.uu c=
u 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 ther=
e are
>>>>    >   sound evolutionary reasons for natural language making sharper
>>>>    >   distinctions between lions and Lion than you seem to want lojba=
n to?
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I still don't think I understand your setup. Do you have different
>>> entities to handle these different cases? e.g. would you actually use
>>> multiple lions in the lion-hunting example, rather than Lion doing
>>> different things in different places? But use Lion for the daily lion?
>>
>> Yes. For Gricean reasons, rather than truth-conditional necessity.
>
> OK. And the "individuative cmavo" discussed below would be how you
> disambiguate between these two meanings of {cinfo}? Or have you some
> other way to refer explicitly to Lion rather than some lions, or vice
> versa?

It'd be the individuative cmavo. I guess the one you call "Lion" is used wh=
ere X is a lion and Y is a lion but you don't know (or don't say) whether X=
 =3D Y. And the one you'd want is where the speaker is certain how many dis=
tinct lions there are, based on maximizing spatially distinct lions, minimi=
zing temporally distinct lions, and whichever other criteria deal with case=
s like "the lion(s) we each spoke about" (where we each speak about one lio=
n) and so forth.

>>> So your individuative cmavo would be something like classifiers?
>>
>> I guess so, but I hesitate to venture to delineate a scheme whose
>> primary purpose is to satisfy your requirements, given that you have
>> a better understanding of your requirements than I do.
>
> Well... you seem to acknowledge that it's useful to be able to talk
> about lions as well as Lion; so if we are to have e.g. {lo cinfo} often
> refer to Lion, wouldn't it be rather helpful to have an explicit way to
> go from Lion to lions?

Provided that the default is to allow speakers to be vague and unspecified,=
 then yes I think it would be good to have ways of being explicit about cri=
teria for individuation.I don't see there being a simple dichotomy between =
kinds and nonkinds, though.
 =20
> For example, let's consider x1 of {ckape}. I assume you would say that
> lions, Lion and Perilousness all ckape.

Is Lion what you get when  X is a lion and Y is a lion but you don't know (=
or don't say) whether X =3D Y?

And is Perilousness the potential harmer, or the situation of there being d=
anger, or the property of being a potential harmer, or what?

> OK, so it seems we now have three proposed methods of handling this kind
> of situation:
>
> (i) JC's bunches approach - there are only lions and other perilous
>      objects; Lion and Perilousness are maximal(ish?) bunches of such;
>      disambiguation is through the tense system (e.g. {lo ka'e ckape},
>      maybe)
> (ii) Using abstractions - e.g. Perilousness doesn't ckape, but it does
>      ka ckape; Lion doesn't cinfo, but it does ka cinfo and it does
>      ckape; lions cinfo and ckape.
> (iii) (being my probably inaccurate understanding of your suggestion)
>      Like (ii) but the other way up: Lion is basic; an individuating
>      cmavo gets us down to lions. Similarly Perilousness is basic, and
>      (multiple? repeated?) cmavo can get us down either to Lion or all
>      the way to lions. Sometimes (i.e. in some contexts) only Lion
>      cinfos, while sometimes it's lions which cinfo; both ckape when
>      they're around, but sometimes only Perilousness ckapes (presumably
>      only when neither Lion nor any lions are around, although
>      individuating cmavo can summon them into being).
>
> But am I understanding correctly that you actually favour:
>
> (iv) Like (iii) but without the individuating cmavo - we can glork from
>      context whether we're talking about lions or Lion or Perilousness.
> ?

Let me leave Perilousness to one side, since I'm not sure what it means her=
e.

I'm not advocating (ii).

If the difference between (i), (iii) and (iv) is that in (i) disambiguation=
 is by tense, in (iii) disambiguation is by special individuating cmavo, an=
d in (iv) disambiguation is solely by glorking, then I reject (i) because I=
 don't see how it could work, and favour (iii) if only because you have tho=
ught deeply about (iv) and find it unsatisfactory. If i were to consider on=
ly my needs and not yours, (iv) would suffice.

--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.