Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:49968)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCNXflom_FxDhoIv2BBoEKRREYw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RQPww-0001k1-61; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:53 -0800
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33sf8612769pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:39 -0800 (PST)
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;
        bh=Hv5GEkxUD8V7tZ8T01chBEH2Awkad5EgLE/P8Ch6pqg=;
        b=Ocr0ZEjPTAbwUeJWefKMZBMaRRL4c6Vk6H2LsTZ9/4SBV205QGT4ncp4oCk7xpYZCx
         rYX7knZT+YvZe940hM5rEc8hur6wnACuebTLg7alwx6jvWFgEuI/OUZM3T8lzHAD7WoW
         g0bGH4s7b29cow/uEUqk7wwRNpeyoqIy2/ITY=
Received: by 10.68.22.69 with SMTP id b5mr3995691pbf.11.1321390177009;
        Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:37 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.26.8 with SMTP id h8ls3464671pbg.1.gmail; Tue, 15 Nov 2011
 12:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.32.194 with SMTP id l2mr3464247pbi.0.1321390176251;
        Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.32.194 with SMTP id l2mr3464242pbi.0.1321390176235;
        Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f48.google.com (mail-pz0-f48.google.com [209.85.210.48])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r5si6501344pbe.1.2011.11.15.12.49.36
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.48;
Received: by mail-pz0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 32so18232643pzk.7
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.28.133 with SMTP id b5mr62314523pbh.28.1321390175956; Tue,
 15 Nov 2011 12:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.224.8 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:49:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201111142226.11501.phma@phma.optus.nu>
References: <BC4158B4-9A03-4FA3-B5FE-1E0065FD5243@yahoo.com>
	<1321289156.24832.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<CAOYwWb3-T2jyt-CsmO7U6ZTcrNx=Dux4n=vXyK1nBcPDk6MnoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201111142226.11501.phma@phma.optus.nu>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:49:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOYwWb2BotDGeEOhpr5UYc_PM-JXN1D7eqCkbzV-D52MEO19Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like
From: maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: maikxlx@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.48 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=maikxlx@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520e9070c2ec804b1cc2055
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--bcaec520e9070c2ec804b1cc2055
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

coi.  I am going to practice my Lojban -- please stand back!  Corrections
welcome.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> Would it be correct to say "lo'e za'e grezunca'a cu se finti la .caklis."?
>

i mi na jinvi. .i ba'e lo za'e grezunca'a cu se finti la .caklis. .iku'i no
da poi za'e grezunca'a zo'u da se finti la .caklis. .i ku'inai naku lo'e
za'e grezunca'a cu se finti



> Also, does my example "lo'e .ornitorinku na fadni mabru .iki'ubo na'o se
> jbena re sovda" involve a kind?
>
>
i frica.  .i lo .ornitorinku na fadni mabru .ije ja'a ro da poi
.ornitorinku zo'u da na fadni mabru .i ku'inai ja'a lo'e .ornitorinku na
fadni mabru

It may seem strange that given the slots of two bridi satisfied by "kinds",
no individual satisfies one slot, and all individuals satisfy the other
slot.  Part of the difference, in my best analysis (very much ongoing), is
that there are really (at least) two sorts of "kinds" or more accurately
two sorts of "kind" predications, which we can call (true) kinds, and
generics, each of which go by their own logic.  In the case of the (true)
kind, the predicate is episodic i.e. refers to one event or situation:

(1a) Trees are widespread.  [trees as one giant mass, one "snapshot"
glimpse]
(1b) Dodos are extinct.  [dodos as a one species, one extinction event]
(1c) Birds evolved from dinosaurs. [(at least according to science) similar
to (1b)]
(1d) Transistors were invented by Shockley et al. [the whole class of
components, one invention event]

In none of these cases does it seem that ANY individual satisfies the
predicate that the kind does, at least not with the same reading.  Generics
work differently:

(2a) Dogs are mammals.  [intrinsic property for individuals: All(x): Px ->
Qx]
(2b) Insects are six-legged.  [characteristic near-universal property:
Most(x): Px -> Qx]
(2c) Lions are ferocious.  [characteristic common property: Many(x): Px ->
Qx]
(2d) Humans have walked on the moon. [existential property: Exists(x): Px
and Qx]

I annotated each case using (non)standard quantifiers with "x" as a
variable of individuals, Px corresponding to the English subject NP and Qx
to the VP, in order to compare what portion of the individuals satisfy the
predicate .  In these cases, it seems that some individuals at least MAY
satisfy the same predicate that the generic does.  In fact, generic
interpretations seem to arise "squinting" at the whole class.  More
precisely, we are quantifying over individuals and situations.

I believe that the reason for the difference (assuming what I am saying
here holds up) basically boils down to VERB ASPECT.  Kinds seem to involve
a perfect(ive) aspect of some sort describing episodic events that don't
pertain to any individual.  Generics seem to involve some sort of generic,
habitual, or similar aspect describing numerous situations that may involve
every individual.  In Lojban, these two very different aspects need not be
marked.  However, by avoiding the need to mark aspect or any other
grammatical category (which works fine in normal human usage I think),
Lojban does incur a little bit of confusion in the formal semantic analysis.

Incidentally, IMO (as shown above) given the canonical definition of the
"typical that really is", {lo'e} can refer to generics but not kinds.  If
the "typical" broda does something, then certainly at least one individual
broada should be able to do it, which true kind-predication disallows.  One
can argue that {lo'e} thus can mark generics at least, but I think it would
make more sense to use aspect cmavo on the bridi.  What boils down to verb
aspect shouldn't be marked on the gadri.  That's totally my 2 cents though.


>
> Pierre
>
>
-Mike

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--bcaec520e9070c2ec804b1cc2055
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

coi.=A0 I am going to practice my Lojban -- please stand back!=A0 Correctio=
ns welcome.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:26=
 PM, Pierre Abbat <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:phma@phma.optus.n=
u">phma@phma.optus.nu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Would it be corre=
ct to say &quot;lo&#39;e za&#39;e grezunca&#39;a cu se finti la .caklis.&qu=
ot;?<br>

</blockquote><div><br>i mi na jinvi. .i ba&#39;e lo za&#39;e grezunca&#39;a=
 cu se finti la .caklis. .iku&#39;i no da poi za&#39;e grezunca&#39;a zo&#3=
9;u da se finti la .caklis. .i ku&#39;inai naku lo&#39;e za&#39;e grezunca&=
#39;a cu se finti<br>
<br>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt=
 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Also=
, does my example &quot;lo&#39;e .ornitorinku na fadni mabru .iki&#39;ubo n=
a&#39;o se<br>

jbena re sovda&quot; involve a kind?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>i frica.=A0 .i lo .ornitorinku na fadni mabru .ij=
e ja&#39;a ro da poi .ornitorinku zo&#39;u da na fadni mabru .i ku&#39;inai=
 ja&#39;a lo&#39;e .ornitorinku na fadni mabru<br><br></div></div>It may se=
em strange that given the slots of two bridi satisfied by &quot;kinds&quot;=
, no individual satisfies one slot, and all individuals satisfy the other s=
lot.=A0 Part of the difference, in my best analysis (very much ongoing), is=
 that there are really (at least) two sorts of &quot;kinds&quot; or more ac=
curately two sorts of &quot;kind&quot; predications, which we can call (tru=
e) kinds, and generics, each of which go by their own logic.=A0 In the case=
 of the (true) kind, the predicate is episodic i.e. refers to one event or =
situation:<br>
<br>(1a) Trees are widespread.=A0 [trees as one giant mass, one &quot;snaps=
hot&quot; glimpse]<br>(1b) Dodos are extinct.=A0 [dodos as a one species, o=
ne extinction event]<br>(1c) Birds evolved from dinosaurs. [(at least accor=
ding to science) similar to (1b)]<br>
(1d) Transistors were invented by Shockley et al. [the whole class of compo=
nents, one invention event]<br><br>In none of these cases does it seem that=
 ANY individual satisfies the predicate that the kind does, at least not wi=
th the same reading.=A0 Generics work differently:<br>
<br>(2a) Dogs are mammals.=A0 [intrinsic property for individuals: All(x): =
Px -&gt; Qx]<br>

(2b) Insects are six-legged.=A0 [characteristic near-universal property: Mo=
st(x): Px -&gt; Qx]<br>

(2c) Lions are ferocious.=A0 [characteristic common property: Many(x): Px -=
&gt; Qx]<br>
(2d) Humans have walked on the moon. [existential property: Exists(x): Px a=
nd Qx]<br><br>I annotated each case using (non)standard quantifiers with &q=
uot;x&quot; as a variable of individuals, Px corresponding to the English s=
ubject NP and Qx to the VP, in order to compare what portion of the individ=
uals satisfy the predicate .=A0 In these cases, it seems that some individu=
als at least MAY satisfy the same predicate that the generic does.=A0 In fa=
ct, generic interpretations seem to arise &quot;squinting&quot; at the whol=
e class.=A0 More precisely, we are quantifying over individuals and situati=
ons.=A0 <br>
<br>I believe that the reason for the difference (assuming what I am saying=
 here holds up) basically boils down to VERB ASPECT.=A0 Kinds seem to invol=
ve a perfect(ive) aspect of some sort describing episodic events that don&#=
39;t pertain to any individual.=A0 Generics seem to involve some sort of ge=
neric, habitual, or similar aspect describing numerous situations that may =
involve every individual.=A0 In Lojban, these two very different aspects ne=
ed not be marked.=A0 However, by avoiding the need to mark aspect or any ot=
her grammatical category (which works fine in normal human usage I think), =
Lojban does incur a little bit of confusion in the formal semantic analysis=
.<br>
<br>Incidentally, IMO (as shown above) given the canonical definition of th=
e &quot;typical that really is&quot;, {lo&#39;e} can refer to generics but =
not kinds.=A0 If the &quot;typical&quot; broda does something, then certain=
ly at least one individual broada should be able to do it, which true kind-=
predication disallows.=A0 One can argue that {lo&#39;e} thus can mark gener=
ics at least, but I think it would make more sense to use aspect cmavo on t=
he bridi.=A0 What boils down to verb aspect shouldn&#39;t be marked on the =
gadri.=A0 That&#39;s totally my 2 cents though.<br>
<br>
=A0<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; bo=
rder-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Pierre<br>
<div class=3D"h5"><br>
</div>
</blockquote><br>-Mike<br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



--bcaec520e9070c2ec804b1cc2055--