Received: from mail-ye0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:52171)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBCD6T3EC2UIBBXWIVKDQKGQEE5E3AOY@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1TsA0z-0006NE-Cw; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:33:21 -0800
Received: by mail-ye0-f189.google.com with SMTP id r9sf11655682yen.6
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:33:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received: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=Xa7eDyCScEPMYze1yCmPMtMR+5QqKoDBmiVgvNmlyx0=;
        b=Zm1GgQwtOOPDLe0+X7/uVRb8DoZOB0D1hxi+U2b3tDnR5czWTRW5P/fftlJPcmqqZS
         dFD1N1ofnvdZ5vZslqWO0FPJQ7qCbH2xyOcst+VLyW6Il15FjuI83NS9N6ggIrBjGFcI
         PDf5eyZZ6WiL+A8Oat20h3Jr2Qxv+g+k/HjGsOx6oAV2d5745aL/kJJ1ciLoq9FUovT1
         PUa2UeTeTNiUpGZO86qM6/Ztc7OAQ2370+yptKrHLmNH7lYMQCn4gxvyCkI4gCzTkgTl
         r3ntB1/L+kUqV2seU8F8oB0qo4KHFKTTzAx2D9cSUS7HR7WX5QH1M5fltppCvQMb+vAm
         +2+A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received: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=Xa7eDyCScEPMYze1yCmPMtMR+5QqKoDBmiVgvNmlyx0=;
        b=O4YWIkGZ9ZDSFXbrgvn0BO1AGOEW/FZhpCGaekes5MvKnmjQngHBQbDAKhYizmtRHA
         JmmVhmUPZ0SjLG7BvvShQTvLqvCWUYEtAUmP0d7rmgGX52oL64V6DTtDyGM2H76kkhmP
         lsrg4L4zDnlbzu6IDiQujZp76TE81w/HUuWn6qyJfY3IqHnV0M/fiuo0wfGBBUZkTeCG
         UEPFzweZ4l9ME3n1Uzfcr+C7uTsKNpkHtPsvPuWwodgGlaadHBbm0cnRlpaUxxr43kL2
         ARzeXO5vXOmR1a5DaVPwOL8VlpWNtyX8vBgoFiGhQIqaBA9JJAjLPjz0fmgCBdiFtZg3
         wj1A==
X-Received: by 10.50.11.196 with SMTP id s4mr1651348igb.9.1357554782625;
        Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:33:02 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.17.201 with SMTP id q9ls1588254igd.26.canary; Mon, 07 Jan
 2013 02:33:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.43.49.195 with SMTP id vb3mr47174221icb.24.1357554781825;
        Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:33:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.43.49.195 with SMTP id vb3mr47174220icb.24.1357554781811;
        Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f174.google.com (mail-ia0-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hw1si470090igc.3.2013.01.07.02.33.01
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.174;
Received: by mail-ia0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y25so15918920iay.19
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:33:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.11.136 with SMTP id q8mr5317986igb.87.1357554781715; Mon,
 07 Jan 2013 02:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.142.134 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 02:33:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+gZtgKgA5hVdStmzcqQkYpFjZaJMtipN0FnoxjAMcpP9p9MTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+gZtgKFUxv+j8A71VTWMhrXc8-Xh0F-EQr7nL-tWhjaKWgr4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALMa68qh-sonU4gjYuEQ4iSWvrSgHNoP6bg2RGfX5v8z-hRXkA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+gZtgLZa=NPKN2v4g33e1PEj8yGcg7XDok9+LtBecL1hsJBLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+gZtgKgA5hVdStmzcqQkYpFjZaJMtipN0FnoxjAMcpP9p9MTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:33:01 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68p5PrdNLE3Bkhwq=_FFBZNroYQFePD+_mpUjsjeSewu2w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Quantifier exactness
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: felipeg.assis@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.174 as permitted
 sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass 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:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

What is lacking here is the argument /for/ quantifier inexactness,
which goes against CLL.

On 7 January 2013 01:15, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...Actually, both of the above situations are the same. {ci prenu cu zvat=
i
> lo zdani} when 5 are present is an "inexact quantifier", but it can be
> sneakily worked around by playing with the universe of discourse (i.e. we=
're
> excluding them from the discussion). There's no such workaround in the fi=
rst
> example, because the quantifier range is explicit.
>

The analysis of "There are three people in the house" has always been
{su'o ci prenu cu
zvati lo zdani}, as far as I know. The "probably just about three"
part comes naturally as a
pragmatic effect of scalar implicature: if more than three relevant
people are known to be
on the house, the speaker would have mentioned that.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

Jan 6, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not {su'o}, no. Instead it's more like "at least one, and probably about
>> one." As for the example, trivial examples don't really help (since the
>> issue could basically be left up in the air and trivial cases would stil=
l be
>> resolvable in context), while universe-of-discourse-based examples seem
>> pedantic at best.
>>
>> mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis
>> <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by "inexact quantifers". Do you mean
>>> that {pa}
>>> should be understood as {su'o}? I don't see why that is necessary, or w=
hy
>>> you
>>> would need such a convoluted example to exemplify the different
>>> interpretations.
>>>
>>> mu'o
>>> mi'e .asiz.
>>>
>>> On 6 January 2013 15:59, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > The issue of quantifier exactness has come up a few times already. Th=
e
>>> > most
>>> > recent example was "context and precision" which was forked by aionys
>>> > from
>>> > another thread. You can look at that thread On IRC today, 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 group=
ed
>>> > 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 importan=
t
>>> > 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 loo=
k
>>> > 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 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=3Den.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou=
ps
>>> "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=3Den.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> 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=3Den.

--=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.