Received: from mail-ie0-f187.google.com ([209.85.223.187]:34818)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBCRZPH6MCMIM5YVJQ4CRUBDTTQCI6@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Ts6c9-0005Sz-OQ; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:55:28 -0800
Received: by mail-ie0-f187.google.com with SMTP id e13sf11470533iej.24
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:55:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id
         :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender
         :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=kHQuCb2DAQ3wVdY+kv6grE0gACDqdE/At2UGrIZrtyQ=;
        b=hwBH5CWeB0n3zB+x+ox8V5syg7tTKTr0dOZNw8NMH+6YbguEN0/gwJTmyS2uMC8Ngc
         t/z2rNjo0N0HGE8DA2dj8YK/Sum/plR+3BqwT1dvC46xhKvSSn25EjYanGJnFFkcOPm8
         ak4ZNzt/p5DwaZBsEyl4sd+rZldr72H32kMnDyhXSKhSFIsKxzK/JO3/O45qP0+2ufkL
         1ZVbwnLAnletFIRHTyDYVvkeOfDUiPjM8wMjRDk769zkS/sD8D2luyFM4GJraf+5S3hV
         o/waPn5FyozPp2TsCXYYkuV+UX33mvzVsXOxSTiEjkKau6L2U57B/dVmQPxEaBTkIFlH
         4yuw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id
         :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender
         :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=kHQuCb2DAQ3wVdY+kv6grE0gACDqdE/At2UGrIZrtyQ=;
        b=ybFKGWguaiITGCWiFagD0W7gF667XWFjE64mDQAjB6e2pYQNy77IpH6JeRM5GsjcQW
         76SXESl4DcNt3JbfzQp/0MQcNn5toMzSfTruJ4v5aqvb2a2XD31njoOh+UHgiC9JCDR+
         VifmKsCCOA9jn3X6c3I68CuP3wr+WhptyeXKS8rPfyi2ieYPLIUeHcdU+kdj20rNjrtp
         DOqUK7SNPNlaQcvZ8RxCSq6CwLWYrhhPg0mIsI84cucRajocmrPiVs2+ZC1RQcXdeW9V
         5Gy3IrCJX5gBm5FsuPfAMrjTFwS8R4iALmgpld2yUdOZJm3PeDoRdn+/rHc4pGN09F+d
         AM/A==
X-Received: by 10.49.12.97 with SMTP id x1mr10099593qeb.25.1357541711150;
        Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:55:11 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.62.233 with SMTP id b9ls8911615qes.13.gmail; Sun, 06 Jan
 2013 22:55:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.49.63.164 with SMTP id h4mr9871789qes.39.1357541709873;
        Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 22:55:08 -0800 (PST)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <84a2c41f-502d-4f20-a44b-10bad8aaf57b@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+gZtgKFUxv+j8A71VTWMhrXc8-Xh0F-EQr7nL-tWhjaKWgr4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+gZtgKFUxv+j8A71VTWMhrXc8-Xh0F-EQr7nL-tWhjaKWgr4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Quantifier exactness
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_102_29326277.1357541708291"
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_102_29326277.1357541708291
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



On Sunday, January 6, 2013 10:59:58 PM UTC+4, Latro wrote:
>
> The issue of quantifier exactness has come up a few times already. The 
> most recent example was "context and precision" which was forked by aionys 
> from another thread. You can look at that thread On IRC today,


if there is something important in those logs could you please copy them 
here? not everyone has access to full logs including english messages.
 

> playing around with functions we stumbled upon a combination of a sentence 
> and situation such that one stance on quantifier exactness makes the 
> sentence false while the other makes it true. Here's the setup:
>
> There are 4 people, mi, do, la alis, la bab; the latter two are grouped 
> under {lo re prenu}.
> I like la alis a little bit, but hate la bab.
> You like la alis and la bab a lot.
> Now consider
> {mi zmadu do lo ni ce'u nelci pa lo re prenu}
> (If the ni confuses you, pretend it's ka, as that part's not important 
> here. We can talk about ka-ni elsewhere.)
>
> If quantifiers are exact, this is true. {do nelci pa lo re prenu} is 
> completely false (you like *two* of them, not one), while {mi nelci pa lo 
> re prenu} is true, if only a little bit, so I do exceed you in that aspect. 
> Note that the CLL says this is how the language works, but if you look at 
> the previous discussions you'll find that this is clumsy fairly frequently.
> If quantifiers are not exact, this is false or at least false-ish, since 
> {ro da poi me lo re prenu zo'u do zmadu mi lo ni ce'u nelci da}.
>
> I thought this example warranted discussion primarily because it does *not
> * arise because of annoying, semi-ontological issues related to the 
> universe of discourse. Instead there's only two people being quantified 
> over, but the two interpretations still differ with respect to this 
> (relatively simple) sentence.
>
> .i do ma jinvi
>
> .i mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/UWGhhIn-ypkJ.
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.


------=_Part_102_29326277.1357541708291
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br>On Sunday, January 6, 2013 10:59:58 PM UTC+4, Latro wrote:<blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left:=
 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">The issue of quantifier exactness has c=
ome up a few times already. The most recent example was "context and precis=
ion" which was forked by aionys from another thread. You can look at that t=
hread On IRC today,</blockquote><div><br></div><div>if there is something i=
mportant in those logs could you please copy them here? not everyone has ac=
cess to full logs including english messages.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-lef=
t: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"> playing around with functions we stu=
mbled upon a combination of a sentence and situation such that one stance o=
n quantifier exactness makes the sentence false while the other makes it tr=
ue. Here's the setup:<br>
<br>There are 4 people, mi, do, la alis, la bab; the latter two are grouped=
 under {lo re prenu}.<br>I like la alis a little bit, but hate la bab.<br>Y=
ou like la alis and la bab a lot.<br>Now consider<br>{mi zmadu do lo ni ce'=
u nelci pa lo re prenu}<br>
(If the ni confuses you, pretend it's ka, as that part's not important here=
. We can talk about ka-ni elsewhere.)<br><br>If quantifiers are exact, this=
 is true. {do nelci pa lo re prenu} is completely false (you like <i>two</i=
> of them, not one), while {mi nelci pa lo re prenu} is true, if only a lit=
tle bit, so I do exceed you in that aspect. Note that the CLL says this is =
how the language works, but if you look at the previous discussions you'll =
find that this is clumsy fairly frequently.<br>
If quantifiers are not exact, this is false or at least false-ish, since {r=
o da poi me lo re prenu zo'u do zmadu mi lo ni ce'u nelci da}.<br><br>I tho=
ught this example warranted discussion primarily because it does <i>not</i>=
 arise because of annoying, semi-ontological issues related to the universe=
 of discourse. Instead there's only two people being quantified over, but t=
he two interpretations still differ with respect to this (relatively simple=
) sentence.<br>
<br>.i do ma jinvi<br><br>.i mi'e la latro'a mu'o<br>
</blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/UWGhhIn-ypkJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/UW=
GhhIn-ypkJ</a>.<br />=20
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 />



------=_Part_102_29326277.1357541708291--