Received: from mail-qa0-f55.google.com ([209.85.216.55]:42931) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TthVa-0001NF-RW; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:31:27 -0800 Received: by mail-qa0-f55.google.com with SMTP id l8sf981110qaq.20 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:31:00 -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 :x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:x-ymail-osg :x-rocket-mimeinfo:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:reply-to :subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=SbRgmPrcBtqVQlQpdIge2R2nkUo0Ax663OWx3iZ7nDw=; b=xEALLCUCRq6xQDb4Aps/R2GYdf2v7tSXl8a8Mo21xJtU2eGsmRhXDI3lyGAyfdjkd8 GwhqyRaQry53XmvbGJPPvQTyXMsj+FNyi5LMp+Vyx2p7siTNlpcl+mesqkvu4fuXPR55 727KazgOCJxq4QJhBHPY31TV2SjFJT5PXTm97mOsdcU/ZbyrdH1Xf/Qd3PUrY8gkC9Em aAaK1NpUoVEyPtLMNjdxa7QF/I1/vBMj8NTW1vlx9GUzKtvqwBlSTZ2QJJz2A3smZCSP zC/e+joZ7F0pZ7refw5pp041t9vdLIOybn8KyMNdSILlkKTY0yr4R/TmAI16U4RQAmbm I0Mw== X-Received: by 10.49.96.196 with SMTP id du4mr14181893qeb.37.1357921858819; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:30:58 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.1.109 with SMTP id 13ls2334471qel.87.gmail; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.158.168 with SMTP id q28mr41967429yhk.20.1357921857333; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.158.168 with SMTP id q28mr41967428yhk.20.1357921857311; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm5-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm5-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.155]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i63si266004yhk.5.2013.01.11.08.30.57 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:30:57 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.155 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.155; Received: from [66.94.237.192] by nm5.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2013 16:30:56 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.99] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2013 16:30:56 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1004.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2013 16:30:56 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 656600.96482.bm@omp1004.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 83573 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jan 2013 16:24:16 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: XDYgJq0VM1lyXpKFYithuQP8GSQizQ3mkQa.GenR.4fbXSI n.rXex427Mhf.v5Ia_W3T0zbBoQWrzUoZSanbi9hMjOFjfO893PseLDec67J W1FTHUV59tRv9MNGARZrKMlhngtgYuGku_YpasIOLwkqJqoCTOfulzw2Or_5 kbAbIYJZOrstCmsl8_QQEHUXP18ces6aRPToyQLpwQhnfVN7Uu7j.IAaCaVo FQFoLA6KRK0r9Pr1TcLSmLmyzAXfA2FYOqriNsl3HgGHIRdCiya755eZzqaU zAvqVF3NyUsw2FYSQeNC7kHL4TEElxb6q2sVi26UmWtF8fjLByGfneS6VDTL RPBaMm_OIXkRQlJ16KMHDKLG24DQjfu.k5ujRfjuDqg6Hi5WvazJdyFaD45s wIQoAxbp.5_y06GIB2MWA._1Z6j4n7OD40Y1ijXKuaa4yRbAbAB1wLdyg5hX v9z5C5O5_jdTn0o80Vb88S_aSg5pOBZytl6jRNr3PJJ3qQ5HEqK4SIVAQH1j RuftO8of4S0SrsdwbVb7PGV9H2wPQww-- Received: from [99.92.108.194] by web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:24:16 PST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 001.001,U29ycnksIHN0YW5kYXJkIChpbiBhdCBsZWFzdCBzb21lIGdyb3VwcyBJIHdyaXRlIGluKSBsb2dpY2FsIG5vdGF0aW9uOiBBIGZvciB1bml2ZXJzYWwgcXVhbnRpZmllciwgUyBmbyBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIChMIGZvciBzYWxpZW50LCA_IGZvciBpbnRlcnJvZ2F0aXZlLCBidXQgdGhvc2Vkb24ndCB0dXJuIHVwIGhlcmUpLsKgIFF1YW50aWZpZXJzwqAgdGFrZSB0d28gd2ZmcyBhbmQgYSB2YXJpYWJsZSwgQXhGeEd4IGlzIEFsbEZzYXJlR3MsIHRoYXQgdW5pdmVyc2FsaXR5IHJlc3RyaWN0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIChub24BMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.130.494 References: <50EC7334.8040607@gmx.de> <50ECB7C1.2020501@gmx.de> <20130109124414.GD14601@samsa.fritz.box> <20130111001919.GA17367@samsa.fritz.box> <1357872173.57379.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20130111104236.GB17367@samsa.fritz.box> Message-ID: <1357921456.64440.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:24:16 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] searching To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" In-Reply-To: <20130111104236.GB17367@samsa.fritz.box> 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 66.94.237.155 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="-334495122-1695301468-1357921456=:64440" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ---334495122-1695301468-1357921456=:64440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, standard (in at least some groups I write in) logical notation: A fo= r universal quantifier, S fo particular (L for salient, ? for interrogative= , but thosedon't turn up here).=A0 Quantifiers=A0 take two wffs and a varia= ble, AxFxGx is AllFsareGs, that universality restricted to the (non-null) e= xtension of F.=A0 or [x:Fx]Gx.=A0 I suppose one could avoid the problem her= e by using=A0 (x)(Green x =3D> Seek I, x), but that doesn't really help. I would be happy to have a better analysis of "seek", in particular, one th= at allowed for quantifiers to be placed properly without question, but I do= n't see it anywhere.=A0 Much of the problem is in how we deal with intensio= nal phrases.=A0 Of the two usual approaches, having certain places specifie= d as such in the lexicon or having all places transparent but some phrases = labelled as intensional, Lojban has chosen a position in the middle.=A0 All= places are transparent, but some have recommended or required intensional = phrase structures for filling.=A0 Unfortunately, these cases don't cover al= l the intensional cases (and cover a number which are not intensional as we= ll), so we are left with thing like thing {sisku} (which is not actually in= Lojban, after all, but is popularly uses as though it were), where the tra= nsparent place yields unwanted results. Ultimately, of course, what we want is a particular quantifier in the scope= of the subjunctive, which is my informal summary of the role of {tu'a}.=A0= So, for me, at least, {mi sisku tu'a da poi crino} means "I am looking for= something green" with no hint that a particular one (or even one in the pr= esent UD) is required, since it expands to the more satisfying "I have a go= al which would be satisfied just in case I were to have something green", w= ith the quantifier tucked in the right place.=A0 The standard explanation o= f {tu'a} gets close to this but gets bogged down in technicalities. Your solution, as I understand it (if at all), is that {mi sisku da poi cri= no} is indeed transparent and the occurrence there of {da poi crino} may ch= ange the UD by adding an object to guarantee that the extension of {crino} = is non-null.=A0 If the extension of {crino} is already non-null, however, t= his object is to be identified with some already present object, which one = depending on which one I actually find (more or less).=A0 But that kind of = anonymous object isn't allowed in the semantics game, nor does it help, sin= ce, as soon as its identity is revealed we fall back to the position of the= external quantifier (which we never did really leave, if the slot was tran= sparent), that I was really seeking this particular thing, not just any old= thing at all.=A0 Or, taking the broader view, I am really seeking every gr= een thing individually.=A0 Not what is wanted.=A0=20 =A0=20 ________________________________ From: v4hn To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20 Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] searching =20 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:42:53PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote: > Howsabout going back to the basics of "any" in English? > > It is a context leaper, a universal embedded in a verso context > with scope over the whole in which the context is subordinate. > So, what we want is Ax Greenx I seek x. I already asked you two days ago to explain your notation, please. Does this mean something like "forall x : Green(x).(seek(I, x))" or "A(x) =3D> Green(x) =3D> seek(I, x)" or "forall x. Green(x) =3D> seek(I,= x)" ... > Not, notice, {mi siskurocrino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense, > not the property sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled > if I were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so every > green thing fits and none is special ("if my goal were fulfilled, I would= have"). I'm not sure I like that "goal driven" analysis of seek. Especially, mixing up quantifiers and goal constraints is rather confusing. What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to mean, I think, is the follo= wing. There exists a goal G1 which I have in mind, such that for all green things it is true that if I have such a green object, the goal G1 is fulfilled. I very much prefer the analysis I described in my last mail, because if you try to apply quantifiers here, you have to be explicit about the existential goal quantification. Else you could end up searching for _all_ green things: forall x. there exists g. have(I, x) =3D> satisfied(g) (I just invented the "satisfied" for the lack of a better notation) Again, I prefer to say that {mi siskuda poi crino} adds an object to the universe of discourse which satisfies {crino} and can map to a number of physical objects, therefore creating the feeling of a restricted universal quantification. We do this in NatLangs as well: "I'm looking for a shirt.", "I'm searching for something green.", "IchsucheeineKuh.", "Jechercheunevache.", ... Just to point this out again: This is an analysis which I proposed in my last mail and which I never directly read about anywhere. Therefore, I'm still waiting for criticism and comments. > This still supposes, of course, that there is something green in the UD, > so the property sense is still better. > Of course, spelling out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make > the quantifier scope points clearer would be nice, too, > but no one seems to like {tu'a} > and it is a little iffy around the edges anyhow.=20 I don't really get, what you try to point out here. v4hn --=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. ---334495122-1695301468-1357921456=:64440 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry, standard = (in at least some groups I write in) logical notation: A for uni= versal quantifier, S fo particula= r (L for salient, ? for interrogative, but thosedon't turn up here).  Quantifiers  take two wffs and a variable, AxFxGx is AllFsareGs, that universality restricted to the (non-null= ) extension of F.  or [x:Fx= ]Gx.  I suppose one could avoid the problem here by using  (x)(Green x =3D> Seek I, x), but that doesn= 't really help.

I would be happy to have a better = analysis of "seek", in particular, one that allowed for quantifiers to be p= laced properly without question, but I don't see it anywhere.  Much of= the problem is in how we deal with intensional phrases.  Of the two u= sual approaches, having certain places specified as such in the lexicon or = having all places transparent but some phrases labelled as intensional, Loj= ban has chosen a position in the middle.  All places are transparent, = but some have recommended or required intensional phrase structures for filling.  Unfortunately, these cases don't cover all the intensional = cases (and cover a number which are not intensional as well), so we are lef= t with thing like thing {sisku} (which is not actually in Lojban, after all= , but is popularly uses as though it were), where the transparent place yie= lds unwanted results.
Ultimately, of course, what we want is a pa= rticular quantifier in the scope of the subjunctive, which is my informal s= ummary of the role of {tu'a}.  So, for me, at least, {mi sisku tu'a da= poi crino} means "I am looking for something green" with no hint that a pa= rticular one (or even one in the present UD) is required, since it expands = to the more satisfying "I have a goal which would be satisfied just in case= I were to have something green", with the quantifier tucked in the right place.  The standard explanation of {tu'a} gets close to this b= ut gets bogged down in technicalities.
Your solution, as I unders= tand it (if at all), is that {mi sisku da poi crino} is indeed transparent = and the occurrence there of {da poi crino} may change the UD by adding an o= bject to guarantee that the extension of {crino} is non-null.  If the = extension of {crino} is already non-null, however, this object is to be ide= ntified with some already present object, which one depending on which one = I actually find (more or less).  But that kind of anonymous object isn= 't allowed in the semantics game, nor does it help, since, as soon as its i= dentity is revealed we fall back to the position of the external quantifier= (which we never did really leave, if the slot was transparent), that I was really seeking this particular thing, not just any old thing at all.=   Or, taking the broader view, I am really seeking every green thing i= ndividually.  Not what is wanted. 
=  



From: v4hn <me@= v4hn.de>
To: lojban= @googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] searching

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:42:53PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> Ho= wsabout going back to the basics of "any" in English?
>
> It is= a context leaper, a universal embedded in a verso context
> with sco= pe over the whole in which the context is subordinate.

> So, what= we want is Ax Greenx I seek x.

I already asked you two days ago to = explain your notation, please.
Does this mean something like "forall x := Green(x).(seek(I, x))"
or "A(x) =3D> Green(x) =3D> seek(I, x)" or= "forall x. Green(x) =3D> seek(I, x)"
...

> Not, notice, {m= i sisku ro crino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense,
> not the prop= erty sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled
> if I = were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so every
>= green thing fits and none is special ("if my goal were fulfilled, I would = have").

I'm not sure I like that "goal driven" analysis of seek.
Especially, mixing up quantifiers and goal constraints is rather = confusing.

What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to mean, I t= hink, is the following.

There exists a goal G1 which I have in mind,= such that for all green things
it is true that if I have such a green o= bject, the goal G1 is fulfilled.

I very much prefer the analysis I d= escribed in my last mail,
because if you try to apply quantifiers here, = you have to be explicit about
the existential goal quantification.
El= se you could end up searching for _all_ green things:

forall x. ther= e exists g. have(I, x) =3D> satisfied(g)

(I just invented the "sa= tisfied" for the lack of a better notation)

Again, I prefer to say t= hat {mi sisku da poi crino} adds an
object to the universe of discourse = which satisfies {crino} and can map
to a number of physical objects, the= refore creating the feeling of
a restricted universal quantification.

We do this in NatLangs as well: "I'm looking for a = shirt.",
"I'm searching for something green.", "Ich suche eine Kuh.","Je cherche une vache.", ...

Just to point this out again: This is = an analysis which I proposed in
my last mail and which I never directly = read about anywhere. Therefore,
I'm still waiting for criticism and comm= ents.

> This still supposes, of course, that there is something g= reen in the UD,
> so the property sense is still better.

> = Of course, spelling out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make> the quantifier scope points clearer would be nice, too,
> but = no one seems to like {tu'a}
> and it is a little iffy around the edge= s anyhow.

I don't really get, what you try to point out here.

v4hn


--
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.
---334495122-1695301468-1357921456=:64440--