Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:46519) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RYJ9J-0004RZ-Hw; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:11:21 -0800 Received: by ghbg2 with SMTP id g2sf921693ghb.16 for ; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:11:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version: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=wAiLK7U9qNhyY+0mwOB7F2FUWxc/XLtfuTa9yWh3CVk=; b=p34ah08dd1UQQIoZ9+xQRiQct0fDRU710hEL0mjOTi+gFNvpzPdeRPSq+lVLfsP//M mBoSEyBrV9b5kpTJwXBFVlgoHOlLg3OkXFdqyZi2ai+p5fDkw8CNyh1sLgK5C/3T1bN1 FysBNIdQzSEk2TManSkePaPVoqVR9wxKRhT8o= Received: by 10.236.185.106 with SMTP id t70mr6473596yhm.15.1323270660181; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:11:00 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.2.12 with SMTP id e12ls1569782ani.3.gmail; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.226.16 with SMTP id y16mr9224032ang.12.1323270659463; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.226.16 with SMTP id y16mr9224031ang.12.1323270659442; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm21-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm21-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.236.31]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id n75si562764yhe.3.2011.12.07.07.10.59; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:10:59 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.31; Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm21.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Dec 2011 15:10:59 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.125] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Dec 2011 15:10:59 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Dec 2011 15:10:59 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 76969.13869.bm@omp1030.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 43533 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Dec 2011 15:10:58 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 8tVad8YVM1lJaHP0j2xvd2pwbdpH401a_xuQJzTboBjSlYM dXWnviwJ58ltNIN6B6ThrQ9codcrXBHLkvaadc_LGyt2qQ5iBW6hkySDHR.3 upmV7mhPZN7RVu8MI8.nN9WAO_H4h91hHtd41awZPqtkyq.N_3D6mKoV14gk oSGd1mGcdanli1b0x8T64njnrE95xIodEhwjynmmgvP26IgLbCs2jQBbWFIL f.xjhobSgxBd8zi3YmSKR6yMoOuaz6TbH2nK.YgcWYBTIKhSLef2Fzs9NpWX DrZ6oZqLwA.H68RqUUdAg3F8clBjYdoJ68_BJxNszLMQKHNEiQ.dmc8YxBVL yNRfTfsIkzq60uJ9Xhui73CKgfxZamvSq2KMpgXA9zJt4vRV.y7ntvO0l2ub xarohw2Z8Puj21mq.Le7ISbhotiBeHDdBQ0uLPcWK7.yRDHDyWXLTNBDlmgf R.fruBUfw_fpJ Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:10:58 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/589 YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698 References: <1322846401.62835.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111203032456.GA25610@gonzales> <1322939206.67083.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111207032116.GA3126@gonzales> Message-ID: <1323270658.30539.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:10:58 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] No title, since the subject will have changed by the time it gets there To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <20111207032116.GA3126@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.31 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 1 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: As far as I can see (but I haven't looked very hard), the problems (if they are that) with plural reference are around (though perhaps unnoticed) however we deal with plurals. Whether it is an L-set, a C-set, or a kind (whatever that may be), the individuals subsumed, on the tree view, either do/are things singly or together (and a variety of intermediate cases, which aren't too important for this discussion) and either they all are involved or only some, and this latest is either significant or not. On the forest view, the individuals' actives are less significant, but still ought (usually) to be consonant with generality involved. To be sure, the choice of taking everything as disjunctive will cover both the disjunctive and conjunctive cases, but not so obviously the collective and collaborative modes. I suspect that there is more to xorxes' kinds than just distributive mode, however (there always has been, at least). As for the practical problem that we have to label each place with its mode: while this is true in theory (and would have to be dealt with eventually in the semantic analysis), in practice, it is rarely necessary; context provides pretty clear guides in most cases. When there is some uncertainty, then a mark is desirable -- maybe not necessary, as we have been getting along without these indications for years (well, forever, in fact). The need becomes apparent only when the analysis reaches a certain level of precision, though there has clearly been some inchoate awareness of it in the past, in the Logjam gadri system mainly. [...] Content analysis details: (0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (kali9putra[at]yahoo.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service As far as I can see (but I haven't looked very hard), the problems (if they are that) with plural reference are around (though perhaps unnoticed) however we deal with plurals. Whether it is an L-set, a C-set, or a kind (whatever that may be), the individuals subsumed, on the tree view, either do/are things singly or together (and a variety of intermediate cases, which aren't too important for this discussion) and either they all are involved or only some, and this latest is either significant or not. On the forest view, the individuals' actives are less significant, but still ought (usually) to be consonant with generality involved. To be sure, the choice of taking everything as disjunctive will cover both the disjunctive and conjunctive cases, but not so obviously the collective and collaborative modes. I suspect that there is more to xorxes' kinds than just distributive mode, however (there always has been, at least). As for the practical problem that we have to label each place with its mode: while this is true in theory (and would have to be dealt with eventually in the semantic analysis), in practice, it is rarely necessary; context provides pretty clear guides in most cases. When there is some uncertainty, then a mark is desirable -- maybe not necessary, as we have been getting along without these indications for years (well, forever, in fact). The need becomes apparent only when the analysis reaches a certain level of precision, though there has clearly been some inchoate awareness of it in the past, in the Logjam gadri system mainly. ----- Original Message ---- From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, December 6, 2011 9:21:16 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] No title, since the subject will have changed by the time it gets there * Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 11:06 -0800 - John E Clifford : > > From: Martin Bays > > Sent: Fri, December 2, 2011 9:24:56 PM > > * Friday, 2011-12-02 at 09:20 -0800 - John E Clifford : > > > From: Martin Bays > > > Sent: Mon, November 28, 2011 7:34:42 PM > > > > * Sunday, 2011-11-27 at 22:59 -0600 - John E. Clifford > > >: > > > > > On Nov 27, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > > > * Friday, 2011-11-25 at 12:38 -0600 - John E. Clifford > > > > >: > > > > > >> On Nov 24, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > > >>> * Wednesday, 2011-11-23 at 13:34 -0800 - John E Clifford > > > > >: > > > > > > OK. So we need a meaning for {zo'e} which has each of these two as > > > > > > special cases. This could be "particular quantifier over a domain > > > > > > I (could) have in mind" - a special case being that it's >quantification > > > > > > over a singleton domain, so equivalent to it just being a constant > > > > > > I (could) have in mind. > > > > Well, what I really meant was the dreaded close-scope existentially > > > > quantified plural variable - "close-scope" dealing with the interaction > > > > with other quantifiers, and "plural" dealing with the bunch issue (i.e. > > > > I did mean a domain of quantification consisting of a single bunch > > > > when I said "singleton domain"). > > > Not sure why dreaded, they just don't fit sometimes. > > > > Could you give an example? > > Example: {xu do klama le zarci} (mi klama), which, under Gricean rules has to >be > > either x2 = {le zarci} or is terribly rude. Why doesn't that fit? It's just a constant, equivalently existential quantification over a (plural) singleton. > The whole distinction between singular and plural quantifiers is suspect. It > may mean that the whole system has to be taken as second order, though I think > that can be avoided. I don't know what you mean by "suspect". Certainly plural quantification is effectively equivalent to monadic second-order (Boolos has his name attached to this). That's one reason for wanting to keep usual {su'o} and {ro} as singular quantifiers - we don't want to be using second-order quantifiers willy-nilly. > What cases do you expect other than "something" and "what I have in mind"? I > can't think of an example that doesn't fit those two, though I haven't thought > very hard. "something satisfying the predicate I have in mind". This would handle cases where xorxes would appeal to kinds, and you to distributive predication. I'm not sure how necessary it is. > > {du jo du} is because we couldn't find an appropriate one-place > > predicate. > for {du jo du}, since all the work is done by {jo}, any one place predicate > would do. True, but {du} has the advantage of being one syllable long. For the purposes of the present discussion, how about we declare {jai'a} to be the always-true unary predicate (selma'o GOhA). > > I have no modes. In your terminology, this probably does means that > > I assume the mode is always collaborative. > Using collaborative as the default mode rather weakens the force of > collaboration, by allowing all sorts of extraneous (a value judgement) items > in. In this sense, "We won" shouted by a drunken baseball fan here after the > world series this year would be literally true, despite his never even having > gome to a game or watched one. To be sure, we do sometimes want to bring in > ancillary folk, but we usually set some limits. Of course, this is not so much > > a logical matter as a matter of what constitutes a 'real group'. Well, what bunches satisfy a predicate is a matter for the dictionary writers to decide (or decide not to decide). > I'm not quite sure how kinds have much to do with disjunctive mode (nor what > kinds are doing here at all). I meant kinds in the xorxes-carlson-chiercha sense, so basically english bare plurals. "lions are in my garden" means some lion is in my garden. The point is that xorxes uses kinds in this way to explain cases of zo'e which would otherwise look like existential quantification. (e.g. lo tadni be zo'e) > > > For the second, I don't see much hope, except, as you say, introducing > > > a Skolem function -- and even that may not workm depending on the > > > rules. > > > > I don't know what problem you're seeing here. The rules for having the > > quantifiers be "innermost" are simple: given a lojban sentence, work > > with any {zo'e}s as if they were constant terms; once we have translated > > the sentence to a sentence in an appropriate logic, handle {zo'e}s > > by replacing an atomic formula of e.g. the form > > "broda(zo'e,a,b,zo'e,c,...)" with > > "EX X:P(X). EX Y:Q(Y). broda(X,a,b,Y,c)". > > Problem with Skolem functions. There are no Skolem functions here, in the end. > Some definitions only require mention of all > universal quantifiers, others require all terms (the resulting proofs go > somewhat differently). If we go the first route, we cannot keep the little > buried particular out of having scope over subsequent quantifiers. It is not > easy even with the second solution, since, in normal form, this particular will > > then bbe in the scope of subsequent quantifiers, which isn't right either. > > > Anyway, I am unhappy to note that without allowing either a disjunctive > > mode or kinds (and they come to approximately the same thing in this > > case), I don't see a way to understand {lo tadni} in {lo tadni goi ty cu > > sruri lo dinju}. Presumably it isn't assumed that they all study the > > same thing, nor that they otherwise collectively study anything, and yet > > we are claiming {ty tadni zo'e}. > The problem with {lo tadni be zo'e} is back to the interplay of modes and > quantifiers and all that. {zo'e} can perfectly well be a buried particular > here, provided it is not allowed to be pulled across the conjunctive mode of >the > > predication (here is a place where quantifiers can't do the work modes do; I > think there are others). But that sort of restriction is hard to do in >standard > > logic, where all quantifiers have to be prenex at least to the smallest wff in > which they occur. > > Curiously, I see your maneuvering as exactly complicating a simple system. We > have to have the various modes of predication just to handle plural reference > and then some more to deal with generalizations of various sorts. So the only > problem, given that, is how to fit modes into the satisfaction rules. > Apparently, that requires either another set of rules (replacing the usual set) > > or a replcation of various predicates or some other complication. But that is > unavoidable with plural reference, so it is just a cost to the system. If this is true, it seems a very good argument against equipping lojban with plural reference! If we're to have these modes in the semantics, we surely have to be able to mark them. Lojban currently has no facility for that, and adding one would involve complicating the language significantly. Even if we imagine for argument's sake that we wanted only to mark the two modes 'conjunctive' and 'disjunctive', consider the problem we have to solve. In a sentence, which thanks to eks and giheks etc may involve multiple selbri and multiple sumti for each place of each selbri, we have to be able to specify for each selbri-sumti pair the mode involved - and moreover, we have to be able to specify the *order* of these modes, since they don't commute. Compared to this, xorkinds seem innocent. > Anything else, though, seem prodigal. And, if we don't mark somehow, > the different modes then we have either ambiguous claims or we have > a default value. Ambiguous claims sound terrible logically, but > aren't usually too bad practically. We have gotten along with out > explicit markers so far, so we can usually work things out from > context, using common sense (and the Grice rules, if necessary). > Picking a default is more difficult, unless we use the weakest for of > collaborative predication (which I don't really like at all, > preferring one in which the members of a collaborative group actually > participate -- still vague, of course -- in whatever they are said to > do/be collectively). -- 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.