Received: from mail-iy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.210.189]:53030)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCl_9f1BBoE2uX5Ew@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RMtSg-0004fk-45; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:32:05 -0700
Received: by iage36 with SMTP id e36sf7037148iag.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:31:51 -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=18pdz9stKv3/HG6FIKW8VqoskTWnxmUU2PIcPuNV9S8=;
        b=HQv4TF2dsLBES3v73SFZfJLh4rZnuJFpqDmEG6rJffc0q1SqScdgutFMItjATwzMja
         /UshAHk6Ol/W648mvRSNycb/X8lYu/3bNsibovBmN9cZ1fUHvNPF0Z4h7HC2zMyLeVKd
         thYa+hzaKXCpVuu1Irbc8ERwtrki12ZUz/Zzw=
Received: by 10.50.15.199 with SMTP id z7mr2492794igc.15.1320550309218;
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.231.48.198 with SMTP id s6ls4806610ibf.1.gmail; Sat, 05 Nov
 2011 20:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.155.2 with SMTP id s2mr32416106icw.5.1320550308160;
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.155.2 with SMTP id s2mr32416103icw.5.1320550308147;
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5si11085433pbe.2.2011.11.05.20.31.48
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:31:48 -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 pA63VlAh009967
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 03:31:47 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RMtSU-0000t0-HR
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:31:46 -0400
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 23:31:46 -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: <20111106033146.GC2831@gonzales>
References: <20111104233756.GB24058@gonzales>
 <4EB4A123.7030305@gmail.com>
 <20111105061247.GE24058@gonzales>
 <4EB526B7.7070008@gmail.com>
 <20111105172216.GI24058@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dug7A3=o873E=uLCKT3047yU2y0wfqV0NADRtcJ7agTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111105201536.GB835@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2exiMaR4r2D+C6PezFOXVHL_uTc5YPxvAf4m515-Pt+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111105233402.GA2831@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fYiAW_zW6eqo3hrvbD3tKE5j6R8LAa2nXRmtRisg469g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Pk6IbRAofICFmK5e"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fYiAW_zW6eqo3hrvbD3tKE5j6R8LAa2nXRmtRisg469g@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: famti
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: /


--Pk6IbRAofICFmK5e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 22:28 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-11-05 at 18:18 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gm=
ail.com>:
> >
> >> I think I do get it. I just don't think it has anything to do with
> >> logical structure.
> >
> > Well that's a matter of definitions.
> >
> > But note e.g. that the classic example of scope ambiguity in english,
> > "someone loves everyone", can be looked at this way:
> >
> > A: "Someone loves everyone."
> > B: "Oh yeah? Who?
> > A: "Their mother."
> >
> > A: {su'o prenu cu prami ro prenu}
> > B: {ma prami ro prenu}
> > A: {lo mamta}
> >
> > (Lojban can't seem to get at the "their" in "their mother", but that's
> > not really important)
> >
> > (and yes, I know by now that you would consider A to be breaking your
> > favoured domain conventions by having both mundane people and Mother as
> > a person in the same domain; but (a) that's an informal rule, which
> > appears to be flexible (you broke it in the xabju example), and (b) it's
> > not important to the essence of the example that prenu is being used on
> > both sides)
>=20
> I still don't think that's a matter of logical structure. It's A
> tricking B into one interpretation to get an effect once the "right"
> interpretation is presented. That's how many jokes work.

Well, I presented it in joke form - which was possibly foolish as
I didn't intend to trivialise the issue!

Really, I don't see that the situation is significantly better than it
is in english.

A search for "quantifier scope ambiguity examples" yields various
examples of the issue in english, most of which appear to go through
directly in kindful lojban.

Another clear example:
    "A professor talked to all the students"
    {su'o ctuca cu tavla ro le tadni}
could mean only that each student was talked to by a professor -
formally, just because the kind Professor ctucas; or if we apply your
informal rule that quantification indicates that there should be
multiple things at the same level involved, then because it could be
that they were all talked to by a logic professor.

> >> Consider "a beret is a type of hat". I would say "lo ranmapku cu klesi
> >> lo mapku".
> >
> > In reality, I'd just say {ro ranmapku cu mapku}.
>=20
> What about "berets and bowler hats are different types of hats"?
> "lo ranmapku jo'u lo bolmapku cu ficysi'u lo ka klesi lo mapku"

Again we could avoid kinds, and just say {su'o da ranmapku .o nai
bolmapku}. Or we could use properties rather than kinds, and say {lo ka
ranmapku na du lo ka bolmapku}, or copy your approach with {lo ka
ranmapku ku jo'u lo ka bolmapku cu ficysi'u lo ka kairni'i lo ka mapku}
(where ro da poi selkai ku'o ro de poi selkai zo'u go da de kairni'i gi
ro di ckaji da na.a de) (although {go'e fi lo ka ma kau ckaji} might
make more sense).

> > But if you forced me to use kind terminology, I'd want a second
> > predicate for "x1 is a subkind of x2". From the gimste definitions, I'd
> > be more likely to use {klesi} for that than "x1 is an instance of x2",
> > which is closer to {mupli}. In fact, {mupli} seems to want a property in
> > x2, so maybe this could be {klemupli}.
>=20
> (I would rather re-define "mupli" into "x1 is an instance of x2", but any=
way.)
>=20
> ...
> > But maybe it's true that kinds are useful enough that the language
> > should have special facilities for handling them - e.g. allowing {lo
> > mapku} to get a kind. We just need to have ways to disambiguate.
>=20
> "klesi" allows us to disambiguate between two levels. Disambiguating
> between a potentially infinite number of levels is trickier. As the
> old Lojban saying goes: the price of infinite precision is infinite
> verbosity

Can you give an example where we might want to go up two levels from
mundanes (as opposed to their stages or whatever)? I wouldn't be
surprised if there were such, and maybe you've given examples before,
but none spring to mind (other than artificial examples like "kinds of
kinds of garment" - unless you can think of natural cases where we'd
want to talk about those).

> > The "imaginaries" terminology of the other thread gives one plausible
> > approach to this - treating kinds as analogous (and, in a sense, dual)
> > to bunches. {su'o} would get neither bunches nor imaginaries, but {lo}
> > could get either.
> >
> > I suspect that a system based on this could explain e.g. most if not all
> > of the sentences in your alis, while also being sufficiently
> > disambiguable to satisfy me.
> >
> > Would you reject such a solution out of hand?
>=20
> I think that covers most needs, but I suspect there are cases when we
> may want to quantify over kinds.

Hmm. That didn't sound like a rejection!

For quantifying over kinds: if the rule is that {lo} gets a bunch of
imaginaries which are all imaginaries with respect to the same
equivalence relation aka differentiation criterion (i.e., to import one
more piece of model theoretic parlance, a bunch of imaginaries from the
same "imaginary sort"), I see nothing wrong with using e.g.
{ca lo prulamnicte mi citka vo lo cidja poi do nelci}.

I would also want it to be possible to specify that we are fa'u are not
talking about imaginaries (with respect to a non-trivial equivalence
relation, i.e. one coarser than equality), perhaps with {lio} fa'u
{loi}.

(No that wasn't a typo! The PEG morphology allows {lio} as a cmavo form,
right?)

I'd also want to be able to specify the equivalence relation in question
in the former case, i.e. as per And's (iii) of the other thread. I don't
know how to do that... maybe with inner quantifiers?
{re lo fi'u vei ni'e ka skari ma kau ve'o mapku cu vi zvati} for
"two colours of hat are here", or
{so'o lo fi'u vei ni'e ka danlu ma kau ve'o cinfo ba zi morsi} for
"several species of lion will soon become extinct"?

With {lio broda} being (blissfully) short for {lo fi'u vei ni'e co'e ve'o
broda}?

And {lo fi'u ro cinfo} being the wholly singularised lion, i.e. Lion
(rather than an infinitesimal amount of lion)?

Martin

--Pk6IbRAofICFmK5e
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk61/6IACgkQULC7OLX7LNYavACgm7QqrRG++OOfgsQ4sWBcIryv
TzcAnjeIFXurjobBQsZjcJGyQBBglKOS
=icHG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Pk6IbRAofICFmK5e--