Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:63846)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDGrbP1BBoEgUobnw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RKNId-0001P9-Aq; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:47:20 -0700
Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf7503454pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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;
        bh=TogNBM8xAlO3vbtH9TUEPnn/NmCferaQ1ak2HHYBwec=;
        b=D6OrGMZIO8qp30ElABkhE8e1tWbV2vwF+zFvSc322ywymp0mDH6LivP48XrlYOeCCV
         Qyo+/G+DXmo8mBtDOUU9vcWsIn/Ki0Fp2Gkzl6Ja9PXfPq/2d+VMxFvWTedBTEOPy1r4
         8H+Ppm4Uhbj7BUif+UkiaEtly0wdcFxD/O6oY=
Received: by 10.68.62.34 with SMTP id v2mr988827pbr.3.1319950022651;
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.119.115 with SMTP id kt19ls11522006pbb.4.gmail; Sat, 29 Oct
 2011 21:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.30.202 with SMTP id u10mr8195024pbh.1.1319950021963;
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.30.202 with SMTP id u10mr8195023pbh.1.1319950021952;
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r5si7710300pbe.1.2011.10.29.21.47.01
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9U4l19u012232
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 04:47:01 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RKNIS-0001cV-QT
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:47:00 -0400
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:47:00 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Message-ID: <20111030044700.GB32586@gonzales>
References: <4EA68224.1080406@gmail.com>
 <20111026033114.GB3119@gonzales>
 <4EA7BF06.5050103@gmail.com>
 <4EAA8AC9.2010000@gmail.com>
 <20111029001437.GA5535@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2f4jH3Y-45PwMN=KZFMtxjHA7dbmU8en=NDZL=eS=o9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111029145956.GB9385@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c49SHSsw98hxgb0AxBP9WKWAYHBs6n2gzb29Mh6e-3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111029221510.GA32586@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2d5kcG8N=hsCDgdbW8Qs4ShvUBb8K1iH5jmAa+WSWfdtQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5I6of5zJg18YgZEa"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2d5kcG8N=hsCDgdbW8Qs4ShvUBb8K1iH5jmAa+WSWfdtQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: re
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--5I6of5zJg18YgZEa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 20:40 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 17:56 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gm=
ail.com>:
> >>
> >> The difference between jo'u and joi is parallel to whatever difference
> >> there is between lo and loi.
> >
> > Which you're still expecting to be something-or-other to do with
> > distributivity?
>=20
> I don't have much use for loi/joi, but yes, my current understanding
> is that they force non-distributivity. though I think that's somewhat
> lame.

Yes.

> >> > I was kind of thinking that {jo'u} should work like {e}, but be
> >> > processed only after everything else so it has "innermost scope";
> >> > e.g. {broda ko'a jo'u ko'e ro brode} =3D=3D {broda ro brode ko'a .e =
ko'e}.
> >> >
> >> > But that doesn't fit with how you just used it.
> >>
> >> No, I don't think "jo'u" is necessarily distributive.
> >
> > OK. If it does end up being that no coherent lo/loi-like distinction
> > between jo'u and joi can be found, though, I do think this would be
> > a good use for {jo'u}.
>=20
> I think any coherent lo-loi distinction should be transferrable to jo'u-j=
oi.
>=20
> I'm guessing your example was meant to be {broda ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o
> brode} =3D=3D {broda fi su'o brode fe ko'a .e ko'e}, because what you had
> changes the places that the arguments fill, and also "ro" and ".e" are
> commutative anyway.

Correct guesses on both points, sorry!

> That would suggest that "lo" be equivalent to "ro lo" but with
> innermost scope, assuming it pairs with "jo'u".

Yes, quite.

I suppose the point is that effectively forcing *distributivity* is
possible, in this way. But I don't know what could force
non-distributivity, unless we actually have ambiguous predicates.

> >> My theory is that when the mother told him ".ei ko no roi klama lo
> >> jibni be ri" he was unable to identify a wide enough referent for
> >> "ri", perhaps because he had his mind too set on mundanes.
> >
> > Well, she should have been clearer.
> >
> > We need her to be able to be clearer.
>=20
> She could have said: ".ei no roi ku su'o da poi cinfo zo'u do klama lo
> jibni be da".

With that being clearer just because it would be perverse to
existentially quantify over a singleton set, indicating that the
intended domain probably has multiple things which cinfo? But they could
just as well be multiple kinds of lion rather than individual lions?

I think she ought to be able to be even clearer.

> (I first wrote "ko" instead of "do", but that suggests the scope of
> the imperative is within the scope of "no roi", which seems wrong.

Hmm... I'd have thought that the imperativeness of {ko}, like the
questioniness of {ma} and perhaps the constancy of {lo}, beats ordinary
quantifiers. Any reason to have it otherwise?

> )

> In any case the moral of the story was that there are sound
> evolutionary reasons for the kind approach, since obviously we are all
> descended from Cless and he is the one that got the right meaning. :)

Somehow this doesn't seem to be the moral I've taken. Maybe Moople had
a cousin with individuating parents?

--5I6of5zJg18YgZEa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk6s1sQACgkQULC7OLX7LNZ0hgCeIbmOsSZJ0VMnqd1R1r4NPX04
DJgAnAuG/UX1cb4ZMIeJn50aQIQj0OSz
=C/cN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5I6of5zJg18YgZEa--