Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:57069) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RMhJB-00085j-D6; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:29 -0700 Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf3288205bka.16 for ; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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=uBmicM6lr8W7o3Cke8BwLTAZPKGSjFpn2Pk3h7gH8W8=; b=LTCHuULsmdrX9yXaNn7xyDhCy7Ok0ygv4CSVkNqJeA8hy8Wd2r+YBqpzK49MioLtjS FDOWKmWwgkOD3YsHk9e1OfeUuTSFXDPLVkr4vrbadpiMwacpuM3Y42NmNOn/pqSizUIh CQNOyuGfWu/ZDE1jIxIMk31+dDiTsn3Vf0Ku8= Received: by 10.204.14.7 with SMTP id e7mr1650096bka.21.1320503591059; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.29.7 with SMTP id o7ls83313bkc.2.gmail; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.141.76 with SMTP id jd12mr35003bkc.5.1320503590051; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.205.141.76 with SMTP id jd12mr35002bkc.5.1320503590037; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f45.google.com (mail-fx0-f45.google.com [209.85.161.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i17si6568871fai.0.2011.11.05.07.33.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.45; Received: by mail-fx0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p15so4320198faa.4 for ; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.112.10 with SMTP id im10mr2842046lab.2.1320503589910; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 07:33:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 07:33:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20111105051200.GD24058@gonzales> References: <4EA7BF06.5050103@gmail.com> <4EAA8AC9.2010000@gmail.com> <20111029001437.GA5535@gonzales> <4EAC2461.4040307@gmail.com> <20111029172822.GC9385@gonzales> <4EAC5B24.4000604@gmail.com> <20111103234955.GA3758@gonzales> <4EB43035.6040407@gmail.com> <20111104233756.GB24058@gonzales> <20111105051200.GD24058@gonzales> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 11:33:09 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: 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: / On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > So "is true" was a simplification. Let me coin a new notion: a sentence > is metatrue if, were I to claim it out of the blue, you would reasonably > be able to interpret it in a way which made it true. If it weren't for the "reasonably", I would then posit that every non-contradiction is metatrue, so everything here seems to hang on reasonability. > Then the point is that (A) is metatrue iff (B) is, and generally that > metatruthhood is not affected by permuting quantifiers. But that doesn't seem reasonable. In particular, I don't find it reasonable to interpret an out of the blue quantification as quantification over a singleton domain. >> If I say "ro faspre cu dasni su'o ransedyta'u" you can in no way >> conclude that that I mean to say that all french people share a single >> beret. They are different statements. > > Agreed; the question was what to make of {su'o ransedyta'u cu se dasni > ro faspre}. I would say any reasonable interpratation of that requires a domain with more than one ransedyta'u ("ranmapku"?). For example that there is some type of beret that every French person wears, that would be my "reasonable" interpretation. > How about in a situation where the EA claim is more plausible - e.g. > when talking about the residents of some fictional country: > =A0 =A0{ro xabju cu se turni lo xabju} ; > would "some resident(s) govern all residents" not be a plausible > reading? My reading is that every resident is governed by residents (as opposed to being governed by non-residents, say). I don't see any "E" in that claim. It says nothing about how many residents do any governing. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.