To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20 Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Aesop's "The Wolf and the Crane" =20 On Monday, January 28, 2013 5:53:47 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote: 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 man= y 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 t= he *generic* article in the sense that we *don't know* if it's being defini= te or indefinite. The definite-indefinite distinction seems to slowly be dy= ing 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 sis= ku2 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 (quantifier= less {lo} doesn't actually need to for strange xorlo reasons). However, ass= uming xorlo strangeness doesn't happen, the formal definition says we can p= lug in {zo'e noi ke'a plise} (the formal definition should change, IMVHO, t= o 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 s= eems like invoking the property that is being searched for is a more succin= ct 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 strai= ght about xorlo. (As it is, everyone has their own interpretation. Please d= on't say otherwise. In fact, I used to think I knew what I was talking abou= t 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 art= icles and scopes and everything awful in the world, shouldn't we make a new= topic? Yes, let's close the topic and continue where we left last time. "Any" and {ro}=A0https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/yh8-ChFLanM/discu= ssion Other similar topics: Discussion of {da} https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/wtp1pNm8N= vc Discussion of {da}=A0https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/R1-Bi8p= _xmg Quantifier exactness=A0https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/cJHKE= f8kE3Q --=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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --=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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ---6906265-717648181-1359386679=:75094 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, let's= do get this away from Aesop (does anyone remember what the connection was?= ) and stick to meddlesome quantifiers and operators.

To start. 1) "any" is fairly peculiar to English (and related = languages) but it seems that all its logical roles are related to scope iss= ues, whether the scope at variance with the quantifier's, conditional or im= perative or intensional. Lojban doesn't do the scopes other than the = propositional ones well (hardly at all), so we are left to context or jury-= rigging: how do we indicate that the "an apple" is best scoped as within, r= ather than outside the command (and the underlying intensional bit about what would happen were I to get an apple or were my request to be acted up= on positively)? Tossing {tu'a}s around, while justifiable, seems inel= egant at best.

2. Yes, {le} makes purely denot= ative terms (God, how that phrase brings back seminars and symposia of old)= . It is pragmatically urged that the predicate involved be somehow co= nnected to the object in the view of the other participants than the speake= r but that is not strictly required. a le phrase points to a particul= ar definite (or is it specific?) thing (in the xorlo sense) and just that, = so that thing must be in UD, but is otherwise not restricted.

<= div style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: times new r= oman,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;">3. As I have said, the main feature of {lo} is salien= ce. A lo phrase refers to the things with the indicated property that= currently are of interest -- including bringing them to our attention as o= ne possible way. What things is quite open to contextual determinatio= n: {lo broda} may, depending on context, refer to the physical mass of all = brodas, or the class of them or some subclass or or broda alone or various = chunks of one or several brodas taken separately or en masse. There a= re various auxiliary devices (not all well-developed) for disambiguating if= context doesn't work.

4 Neither {le} nor {lo} corre= late in any regular way to English "the" or "a", though, because of salienc= e, repeated {lo broda} comes to be "the" regularly.

5. But {lo} is always bad for "any" beca= use salience -- or any specifying factor -- is just what "any" does not hav= e.

From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>=
To: lojban@googlegrou= ps.com
Sent: Monday, = January 28, 2013 8:04 AM
Subject:= Re: [lojban] Re: Aesop's "The Wolf and the Crane"
<= /div>

On Monday, January 28, 2013 5:53:47 PM UTC= +4, tsani wrote:

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 y= ou 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 distinction seems t= o slowly be dying in IRC Lojban, which is -- I'd wager -- where the majorit= y of "spoken" Lojban happens. If there is such a thing as conversational Lo= jban, it's on IRC.

As for the "any" discussion, I'm slowly beginning to se= e the merits of sisku2 as a property. If we use a simple article plus a sel= bri, we invoke {zo'e} and somewhere, there are definite referents that appe= ar. {.i mi sisku lo plise} has the awful problem of having semi-definite re= ferents (quantifierless {lo} doesn't actually need to for strange xorlo rea= sons). However, assuming xorlo strangeness doesn't happen, the formal defin= ition says we can plug in {zo'e noi ke'a plise} (the formal definition shou= ld 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 refere= nts 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 searche= d 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 inter= pretation. 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 use= d to think I agreed with certain people about xorlo, but I realise that I d= on'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?

Yes, let's close the topic and cont= inue where we left last time.

"Any" and {ro} https://group= s.google.com/d/topic/lojban/yh8-ChFLanM/discussion

Other similar topics:

Discussion of {da} https://gr= oups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/wtp1pNm8Nvc

Discussion of {d= a} https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/R1-Bi8p_xmg

Quantifier exactness https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/loj= ban/cJHKEf8kE3Q

--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_o= ut.

--
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.

---6906265-717648181-1359386679=:75094--