Received: from mail-vc0-f190.google.com ([209.85.220.190]:59298)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBCD6T3EC2UIBB4MLZGDQKGQE3CLIEXQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1TuG7M-00040L-JO; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:38 -0800
Received: by mail-vc0-f190.google.com with SMTP id fy27sf1760443vcb.17
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:18 -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;
        bh=tUQdrYks+ixoTwHQiLxujS9/qsGJWZckE8ZH8HkbvKQ=;
        b=pGGYdcbtIZmte+ZTiLWIVK+ujEHQ6hJWACCsqh3JhqGyxHgqywAbhmJxgFQ7Ooo6Gz
         xGoP0On0vrlVDtTTKHotx7n2yLVoFAE2uOyMrqTwcm2cJyuibyzGHElDFR1CNPBgtdRA
         63hCVILPvkBExqMys6CgDWKuYOYMe6N66sVJwtpP/Qv+FOft6TxTpAjlZ5R/b1VbdyKJ
         aqqQLIJbLb0WvaYnrg76tFdajzxip6HKVcXfYU0xYiFnmzM0OmjyhV/9TeQP5e15Ifh6
         DWlLFGbM14STOTyeRLd9yqoQubsre89StnlmGjoCl06Eney14/0NGjnSfQTdJ/YR9d4T
         OK3g==
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;
        bh=tUQdrYks+ixoTwHQiLxujS9/qsGJWZckE8ZH8HkbvKQ=;
        b=ufvr0fAVkNIBAzOME4HRj1+TA/Q387UXwclufmSbnIK/soiBTqLsHWVk44B5+a+ufu
         qHDxeKCreBtMKOHZeFV3XYIHx9hGClk+6ONdYYSR/I3hSI+703QFQ3bL2IMZPunvkOCO
         8qgzlFvKwD8CvxGH3+aEIVRRb7mvnezSsmHAXW0llpe2UUkN79YQIuBOodFVUzvXLZyz
         aU3yhx6NgblaR8TCFbMfyceM/u/hnYXEY3BptAq9g/ZgVxStDBY1n2oWR6x2cNFA8h4g
         EkbN4N3v5qc375M8/7sS6WW2Qt9TsoPT+c3l2IEF15t+3epv0AWDsDgdrGPZ9DDZhT+C
         zXvg==
X-Received: by 10.50.5.174 with SMTP id t14mr1013029igt.11.1358054897840;
        Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:17 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.207.38 with SMTP id lt6ls1257898igc.12.gmail; Sat, 12 Jan
 2013 21:28:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.42.121.66 with SMTP id i2mr61703465icr.28.1358054897042;
        Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.42.121.66 with SMTP id i2mr61703463icr.28.1358054897028;
        Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f170.google.com (mail-ia0-f170.google.com [209.85.210.170])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ge7si441363igb.0.2013.01.12.21.28.17
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:17 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.170;
Received: by mail-ia0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k20so2626346iak.15
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.214.68 with SMTP id ny4mr3575543igc.65.1358054896873; Sat,
 12 Jan 2013 21:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.142.134 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:28:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1357929461.99777.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAEimHHBP1ob0wQfaVNB2jCV3tV--QJc=0CH40dPm_4PMEq6p4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+gZtgL6G3TnWJTK6bN8LgVDUrzgA1H95gmjbZ+Fbsghq=raZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50EC7334.8040607@gmx.de>
	<CA+gZtgLRxr6fAkouma8k9248JyxZRo==stiDXGkLxzscEKk2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<50ECB7C1.2020501@gmx.de>
	<CA+gZtg+PEyEPKsncFLLkYPP+9n8wy2LjsoPd6aX9JVAN=YkjiQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130109124414.GD14601@samsa.fritz.box>
	<CA+gZtg+7OHnXdxdbO-LnfV1dhXvDnBc3khp+1+qT_5+azz-QgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130111001919.GA17367@samsa.fritz.box>
	<1357872173.57379.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<20130111104236.GB17367@samsa.fritz.box>
	<1357921456.64440.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CA+gZtgLXDQmoqf3JQ9WsgYXMAhmQ3TZix08iM5NaU=gCyi7_sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1357929461.99777.YahooMailNeo@web184406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 02:28:16 -0300
Message-ID: <CALMa68pLAf9OTtFyHOHm6wetZQMzcCsXqeiva+vJTG3Yfwfj8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] searching
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 209.85.210.170 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
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

John has already made a very careful logical analysis of the topic,
so let me try something more concrete:

Saying that "I look for something green", in the sense that any green
thing will do, can be rendered as {mi sisku lo crino} for a convenient
definition of {sisku} is analogous to saying that "I know the result of
2+2" can be rendered as {mi djuno lo sumji be li re bei li re}, which
is actually expressing a relation between me and the number 4:
{mi djuno li vo}.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.


On 11 January 2013 15:37, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not sure how this helps, but there are two different issues here.  On the
> one hand, we need to deal with opaque phrases in the ordinary run of things;
> on the other hand we need to deal with contrary-to-fact situations as not
> ordinary run of things (though far more common than appears in most Lojban
> -- mainly because we are not sure how to do it).  Your suggestion is to
> reduce the first problem to the second (and then make it disappear back into
> the definition of words involved, so still available to surprise us).  But
> not all opaque cases are contrary-to-fact, we have the cases with {du'u} and
> {nu} and the like already (and regularly screw them up anyhow -- see
> raising).  The difficult cases are where we are not sure what abstraction is
> appropriate -- or even that one is, like thing {sisku} and {djica} and so
> on.  These very often are buried contrary-to-facts and for them we do have
> {tu'a}, stripped of its connection to (unspecified) buried abstractions and
> nebulous predicates, as a mark that the following term 1) cannot be moved or
> quantified out of its place (identified with things outside) and 2) at some
> point in an analysis will take its place in one or more alternate worlds
> which represent the working out of the predicate to which the term is
> attached as argument.
> The matter of contrary-to-fact or hypothetical sentences seems to involve
> just working out the rules on scope and the like for {da'i}.  I do not
> include the problems with truth conditions here, of course, since, so far as
> I can tell, no one has come up with a good answer to questions like "If
> Socrates were a 17th century Irish washerwoman, would Plato still have been
> gay?"
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] searching
>
> Here's an idea I just had. I don't actually like it, but the fact that it
> works seems to say something about the issue. If {sisku} were defined as "x1
> is searching among x3 and x1 would be satisfied if they found x2", then {mi
> sisku lo ckiku} does what was originally wanted while {mi sisku ro crino}
> does what {mi sisku lo ka crino} is defined to do. So this definition
> basically solves the problem (I think using {joi} you can specify that you
> would only be satisfied if you found several different sumti, in that
> (rather common) case. {.e} frustratingly doesn't work.)
>
> This definition feels highly nonprimitive (though so does current {sisku}).
> In particular (in this regard unlike current {sisku}) it induces hidden
> quantifier/subjunctivity scope, which is rather important to what is
> actually meant. I'm pretty sure hiding such things is one of the major
> things we'd like to get away from with this language.
>
> Perhaps we should just derail this into a discussion of how best to handle
> subjunctivity?
>
> mi'e la latro'a mu'o
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:24 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, standard (in at least some groups I write in) logical notation: A for
> universal quantifier, S fo particular (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 => 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 placed 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 usual approaches, having certain places
> specified as such in the lexicon or having all places transparent but some
> phrases labelled as intensional, Lojban 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 left 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 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}.  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
> 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 but gets bogged down in technicalities.
> Your solution, as I understand 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 object 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 identified 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 identity 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 individually.  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:
>> 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) => Green(x) => seek(I, x)" or "forall x. Green(x) => seek(I, x)"
> ...
>
>> Not, notice, {mi sisku ro crino}, 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
> 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 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) => satisfied(g)
>
> (I just invented the "satisfied" for the lack of a better notation)
>
> Again, I prefer to say that {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, 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.", "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 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.
>
> 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@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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.