Received: from mail-vb0-f63.google.com ([209.85.212.63]:61517) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TzpA7-0002yP-3n; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:24 -0800 Received: by mail-vb0-f63.google.com with SMTP id l22sf1617008vbn.8 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:08 -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-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject: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=dKXSf7r5QuShM+NoBegC3vgqMgk+abg1NM9US+Qupdg=; b=UvT2gbRzMOfpc0QIjWrzCfs3JlwY8oaKLYcQ0mx3NSXVctvLLqKzQm+vl1299lJp/R s6n+owM2Ql4dFDzjAvxlYpXorEcJqO5Ti9a65b7plrrgeAZD5f25m9Fthi1afYp4K92z +6VuSoIJkWRv9bdQY5U4V5SvuQXSE9f5tyymn5xbShWzqxk5+CQzVZZy8rSnzYZHFWsv a4+7YVeGIfruCX5kXrpubT0Rxnav2jrGUknFIsw+/jV4K02w3OAlrr7wsR9qawRHNBIu ZB5EZMCfsCTUps3TGAbnNkpXTwdMBDhRdRE6qUsg9SR3Lk1dvoPgzO9NevqsjYluJlxv qZMA== 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 :x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject: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=dKXSf7r5QuShM+NoBegC3vgqMgk+abg1NM9US+Qupdg=; b=g2ogG6nr0HK3P3fE3E7OsgYUV0qjHEMipXc7wesV5CgSrmQAAKrUKjPQtRngm3zqgw utxVepMZKyMPGYaFlkDAu/NRFxPgNIiBIv6eneRPVSNDxmDtHaeZkojmQE7o0pfiUkQh sboZbKieqn0nK6UPYeGcf11cAajyb+0LNDWlBSoYXyVB/drU3qK3o02Aa4zofggAHRtU jAjTdy36ZM3x1TOi4uNCaZa831tUf2CRBAFHnBMTmXcBNYuLFaysP1Ofas43b4oXN9OZ vqyev0t6bIU6SdZ8ct3j3JaiYwJQQX556bmp19VvbKzU1L6xIWTeWpnGz+6ledk8uYSF E6Iw== X-Received: by 10.50.34.167 with SMTP id a7mr850732igj.5.1359381248212; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:08 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.207.68 with SMTP id lu4ls1756929igc.44.gmail; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.81.78 with SMTP id y14mr10518576ick.19.1359381247352; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.81.78 with SMTP id y14mr10518575ick.19.1359381247298; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5si739705iga.1.2013.01.28.05.54.07 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.179; Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id un3so2722613obb.24 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.152.65 with SMTP id uw1mr7898409obb.102.1359381247158; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.50.200 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:53:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1696426.fuu6unn560@caracal> <47fd82fb-126d-41a3-aa58-fca6ab2fdbde@googlegroups.com> <20130128102447.GH20956@samsa.fritz.box> <567c078e-13fa-45c1-b22d-c57a45eed8af@googlegroups.com> <20130128125103.GI20956@samsa.fritz.box> From: Jacob Errington Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:53:47 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Aesop's "The Wolf and the Crane" To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: nictytan@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nictytan@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444ef0359e7e304d4599ca6 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d0444ef0359e7e304d4599ca6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 FWIW, I recall the CLL mentioning that using lo and le in a manner analogous to "a" and "the", for back-referencing, is bad. I'm just not sure how many of you will agree with the CLL. (Also, I can't be bothered to look it up.) {lo} *can* refer to things in context, and have definite referents. It's the *generic* article in the sense that we *don't know* if it's being definite or indefinite. The definite-indefinite distinction seems to slowly be dying in IRC Lojban, which is -- I'd wager -- where the majority of "spoken" Lojban happens. If there is such a thing as conversational Lojban, it's on IRC. As for the "any" discussion, I'm slowly beginning to see the merits of sisku2 as a property. If we use a simple article plus a selbri, we invoke {zo'e} and somewhere, there are definite referents that appear. {.i mi sisku lo plise} has the awful problem of having semi-definite referents (quantifierless {lo} doesn't actually need to for strange xorlo reasons). However, assuming xorlo strangeness doesn't happen, the formal definition says we can plug in {zo'e noi ke'a plise} (the formal definition should change, IMVHO, to reflect the fact that {lo} can be quite bullshit-y.) -> {.i mi sisku zo'e noi ke'a plise}. Here's the proof that actual referents appear. {zo'e} has referents. Now, if any apple will do, there *shouldn't* be referents. Now, maybe it's possible to hack our way around this with {da}-magics, but it seems like invoking the property that is being searched for is a more succinct solution, as -- and here's the important part -- *any* object satisfying that predicate will work. I haven't really analysed this to a greater degree that might suggest that using properties can most of the time / always work. I think however that exploring this possibility is worthwhile, unless we all get our facts straight about xorlo. (As it is, everyone has their own interpretation. Please don't say otherwise. In fact, I used to think I knew what I was talking about when I said "xorlo", but I realise that I don't. I used to think I agreed with certain people about xorlo, but I realise that I don't.) .i mi'e la tsani mu'o P.S. if this is going to degenerate into a full-blown discussion about articles and scopes and everything awful in the world, shouldn't we make a new topic? -- 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --f46d0444ef0359e7e304d4599ca6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FWIW, I recall the CLL mentioning that using lo and le in a manner analogou= s to "a" and "the", for back-referencing, is bad. I'= ;m just not sure how many of you will agree with the CLL. (Also, I can'= t be bothered to look it up.)

{lo} *can* refer to things in context, and have definite ref= erents. It's the *generic* article in the sense that we *don't know= * if it's being definite or indefinite. The definite-indefinite distinc= tion seems to slowly be dying in IRC Lojban, which is -- I'd wager -- w= here the majority of "spoken" Lojban happens. If there is such a = thing as conversational Lojban, it's on IRC.

As for the "any" discussion, I'm slowly b= eginning to see the merits of sisku2 as a property. If we use a simple arti= cle plus a selbri, we invoke {zo'e} and somewhere, there are definite r= eferents that appear. {.i mi sisku lo plise} has the awful problem of havin= g semi-definite referents (quantifierless {lo} doesn't actually need to= for strange xorlo reasons). However, assuming xorlo strangeness doesn'= t happen, the formal definition says we can plug in {zo'e noi ke'a = plise} (the formal definition should change, IMVHO, to reflect the fact tha= t {lo} can be quite bullshit-y.) -> {.i mi sisku zo'e noi ke'a p= lise}. Here's the proof that actual referents appear. {zo'e} has re= ferents. Now, if any apple will do, there *shouldn't* be referents. Now= , maybe it's possible to hack our way around this with {da}-magics, but= it seems like invoking the property that is being searched for is a more s= uccinct solution, as -- and here's the important part -- *any* object s= atisfying that predicate will work.

I haven't really analysed this to a greater degree = that might suggest that using properties can most of the time / always work= . I think however that exploring this possibility is worthwhile, unless we = all get our facts straight about xorlo. (As it is, everyone has their own i= nterpretation. Please don't say otherwise. In fact, I used to think I k= new what I was talking about when I said "xorlo", but I realise t= hat I don't. I used to think I agreed with certain people about xorlo, = but I realise that I don't.)

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

= P.S. if this is going to degenerate into a full-blown discussion about arti= cles and scopes and everything awful in the world, shouldn't we make a = new topic?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
--f46d0444ef0359e7e304d4599ca6--