Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:37259)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCXtNX1BBoEJ8rltQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RMiR7-0000Dw-Ua; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:44 -0700
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf3320030bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:30 -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=J9xPRXvvMxpe9jca4mmVv+unJurP8WjYjGCqwHenBTE=;
        b=MUkh5ptYTMj+m5SnpxX5aEkARFSK5ihHmGQOKa/W5HC9j+b9oYfFUOj+0dorjP4p5E
         Xhb++ud9rabTUh8B4hEDD83HxIEVVNmr4KRBFYavTJeHc4eu/CVyR+kFBRGjFvRCmZTG
         zFQMVlxo0ZrJ9/iiSsLyfGndDC2k94gp4Gkm8=
Received: by 10.204.130.27 with SMTP id q27mr2172597bks.30.1320507927623;
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.29.7 with SMTP id o7ls228958bkc.2.gmail; Sat, 05 Nov 2011
 08:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.184.2 with SMTP id ci2mr2272898bkb.7.1320507926616;
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.184.2 with SMTP id ci2mr2272897bkb.7.1320507926604;
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com (mail-fx0-f46.google.com [209.85.161.46])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f1si6653741fae.1.2011.11.05.08.45.26
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.46;
Received: by mail-fx0-f46.google.com with SMTP id o14so5374282faa.33
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.106.130 with SMTP id gu2mr3004452lab.37.1320507926446;
 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 08:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20111105151953.GG24058@gonzales>
References: <20111029001437.GA5535@gonzales>
	<4EAC2461.4040307@gmail.com>
	<20111029172822.GC9385@gonzales>
	<4EAC5B24.4000604@gmail.com>
	<20111103234955.GA3758@gonzales>
	<4EB43035.6040407@gmail.com>
	<20111104233756.GB24058@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2dzo0vjzQLwQObDo3GnOrjvEEE6_6K1wb0+a=On-H_gzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111105051200.GD24058@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cWRu-KW8Nbd7+a1fpB9va=YinWw=L73WDppcc2=_YSMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111105151953.GG24058@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:45:26 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eF_058m93hxnban8bb9QpmAma5+O1TE1DrVmqgk+C2DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
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 209.85.161.46 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: <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: 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 12:19 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 11:33 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>>
>>  In particular, I don't find it
>> reasonable to interpret an out of the blue quantification as
>> quantification over a singleton domain.
...
> Do you mean that, since you prefer not to have kinds and their instances
> in the same domain, you would have the second domain not containing any
> of the brodes from the first domain, leaving you with only one brode?

Yes, quantification over a domain with mixed levels of individuation
is even more bizarre than quantification over a singleton domain.

> Assuming so: firstly, we could just as well have used {pa} rather than
> {su'o};

"pa" still calls for a non-singleton domain, as does "no" and every
other quantifier. (By "calls for" I don't mean "logically
necessitates, I mean "reasonably requires".)

>secondly, the second domain could have multiple brodes too
> - e.g. lots of different kinds of beret, even if it has no "mundane"
> berets.

Yes, that would be fine. But it does not make the AE equivalent to the EA.

>> > 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.
>
> This is a side-issue on the meaning of {lo}, but an interesting one.
> So to clarify, let me ask: if it were the case that there was e.g.
> a single monarchial resident who ruled all residents, could {lo xabju}
> in {ro xabju cu se turni lo xabju} have that monarch as its referent? If
> so, would this be the most likely interpretation?

If I knew nothing about the place, and all you told me was "ro xabju
cu se turni lo xabju", would I conclude that it was a monarchy? No. If
I already knew that it was a monarchy, would I accept "ro xabju cu se
turni lo xabju"? Yes.

> ta'o nai, what about
> {pa xabju cu turni ro xabju}?

That would tell me it was a monarchy.

> Based on the berets example, it seems you would want to interpret this
> as "residents govern all residents", i.e. the same as for {ro xabju cu
> se turni lo xabju} above?

No, sorry, I don't follow.

> Or perhaps you wouldn't, but only because we have {xabju} on both the
> left and the right, blocking a domain with only one xabju? If so, how
> about {pa na'e xabju cu turni ro xabju}?

That would still suggest a monarchy, or at least a government by a
single non-resident entity: in a domain with probably more than one
non-residents, one and only one governs all residents. "pa na'e xabju
cu turni ro xabju" is equivalent to "da'a pa na'e xabju cu turni me'i
xabju", "all but one non-residents govern fewer than all residents".

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.