Received: from mail-qa0-f60.google.com ([209.85.216.60]:60172) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VzuhT-0006xj-Ue for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:47 -0800 Received: by mail-qa0-f60.google.com with SMTP id w8sf241963qac.15 for ; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=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:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Lrv874MM0aHE3cOvKia4Tz7hslEDl3reDfHtg3v6+Pk=; b=mf6OuGi93usiruHBsl/XbCh6riSUmhxjyqUkBmdZfZRuHazUrBYnRdpkcqSlZIGNwq pPtpO5eaekz2iYk3IB+0ZCTRjPmbSiuAu1+VpwB1Vht1ZD043mkBfoz8zOKIl6PznARu 31NN7zx/oAPyXaD7cjAzo5/+UHSM4St3K9R6yErG/nZZQZCNGD4XpNyNYmID8BeZOy50 NjR7U4m6fghD3qZIKNFkdnE13T7h8mh9LOUMS4MdQYpK9Pdy752kbJ8nAX3bjHNVst6x zazRKVZy4weMVyrS18o42X676GgbpoWkq4JbnkIZtT+bvflMplr5pPscn1p0uDhdqo4F /JCQ== X-Received: by 10.49.133.168 with SMTP id pd8mr2145qeb.29.1388955209627; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:29 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.71.170 with SMTP id w10ls5623247qeu.58.gmail; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.2.98 with SMTP id 2mr39693695vet.3.1388955209123; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o30si3138755yhn.1.2014.01.05.12.53.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:29 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of felipeg.assis@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236; Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id as1so17973848iec.27 for ; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:28 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.138.148 with SMTP id is20mr74569565icc.23.1388955208654; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 12:53:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.223.166 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 12:53:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 18:53:28 -0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] [oz] {lo prenu cu cmamau lo makcu} From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Felipe_Gon=E7alves_Assis?= 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 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=felipeg.assis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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=001a11c2f08ad2262604ef3f55c0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --001a11c2f08ad2262604ef3f55c0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, let me expand. I understand that part of xorlo is that predicates be defined on plural variables. This allows, for example, {bevri} to be defined in a way such that {lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno} can mean that the men carried the piano either individually or as a group. This does not mean, though, that the predicate has a double meaning, it just happens that it is _cumulative_. That is, if one man carried the piano, and the other carried as well, then we can say that the two of them carried the piano as well, so that the distributive meaning is particular case of the collective one. If the predicate were distributive, the converse would also be true, and no distinction would exist. Defining the predicates as collective is justified because distribution can be easily conveyed via external quantification and we don't have to introduce any artificial mass-entities otherwise. Well, it turns out that cumulativity is very very common among properties. It wouldn't be hard to enumerate the non-cumulative properties. {cmamau} is a good archetype. Other examples are {cmalu}, {ci mei}, {me'i ci mei}. There is not much space for creativity beyond that. It is to be expected that it brings some contention. To me, nothing else having been specified, the most natural thing is to give {cmalu} and friends a collective meaning. Natural enough that the sentence in question caught my attention during a fairly fluent reading. We can still distribute via external quantification and there is {lo'e} for myopic singularization. I agree with xorxes' myopic singularization analysis of "The men were smaller than the adults Dorothy was used to". I just don't see a justification for that in the Lojban citation. Allowing all predicates to have either collective or distributive, or generic interpretations, without clear rules about when each is to be meant, is to me just bad ambiguity, no better than ambiguous scope, or allowing {lo broda} to possibly mean {lo du'u ma kau broda}. Once we can formally fully explain natural languages, we can have a LoCCan just like them (though there would hardly be any point in it). I can envision some ways to systematically justify the distributive interpretation. {cmalu}, {barda} and friends could be defined to distribute over its connected components, for example. That would capture xorxes intuition that "comparing people's sizes is more common than comparing groups of people's sizes" while allowing the collective meaning in convenient contexts. I would still want something like that to be officially and explicitly declared somewhere, though. mu'o mi'e .asiz. On 5 January 2014 14:42, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis < > felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The full sentence is >> {lo prenu cu cmamau lo makcu poi dy ke'a se slabu}. >> {lo prenu} refers to what turns out to be three Munchkins and the Witch >> of the North, and dy is Dorothy. >> >> The plausible interpretation is of course distributive, >> {ro lo prenu cu cmamau ro lo makcu}. >> > > I wouldn't interpret it that way. My interpretation is that for the > purposes of this comparison all the referents of "lo prenu" are essential= ly > the same size and count as one thing, all the referents of "lo makcu poi > ..." are essentially the same size and count as one, and the former is > smaller than the latter. (This could be called a generic reading, or > "myopic singularization".) I very much doubt that the intention of such a > sentence is to make a cross product comparison of ro vs ro. > > >> But, if predicates are to be defined on plural variables, shouldn't the >> original sentence mean that the bunch of prenu is, collectively, smaller >> than the bunch of makcu? >> > > That's an unlikely reading just because comparing people's sizes is more > common than comparing groups of people's sizes. If instead of "cmamau" th= e > predicate used was "fewer" ("klanyme'a"?) then the group reading would be > the one that makes more sense, since a single person doesn't have any suc= h > obvious quantity to compare as the cardinality of a group. > > Is the translation wrong? Or is the sentence ambiguous? If so, how to >> unambiguously convey the collective interpretation? >> > > To convey a comparison of the groups physical sizes I would say "lo prenu > gunma cu cmamau lo gunma be lo makcu poi ..." > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. --001a11c2f08ad2262604ef3f55c0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok, let me expand.

I understand that part of xorlo = is that predicates be defined on plural variables. This allows, for example= , {bevri} to be defined in a way such that {lo nanmu cu bevri lo pipno} can= mean that the men carried the piano either individually or as a group. Thi= s does not mean, though, that the predicate has a double meaning, it just h= appens that it is _cumulative_. That is, if one man carried the piano, and = the other carried as well, then we can say that the two of them carried the= piano as well, so that the distributive meaning is particular case of the = collective one. If the predicate were distributive, the converse would also= be true, and no distinction would exist.

Defining the predicates as collective is justified because distribution= can be easily conveyed via external quantification and we don't have t= o introduce any artificial mass-entities otherwise.
Well, it turns out t= hat cumulativity is very very common among properties. It wouldn't be h= ard to enumerate the non-cumulative properties. {cmamau} is a good archetyp= e. Other examples are {cmalu}, {ci mei}, {me'i ci mei}. There is not mu= ch space for creativity beyond that.
It is to be expected that it brings some contention.

To me, nothing = else having been specified, the most natural thing is to give {cmalu} and f= riends a collective meaning. Natural enough that the sentence in question c= aught my attention during a fairly fluent reading. We can still distribute = via external quantification and there is {lo'e} for myopic singularizat= ion.

I agree with xorxes' myopic singularization analysis of "The m= en were smaller than the adults Dorothy was used to". I just don't= see a justification for that in the Lojban citation.

Allowing all p= redicates to have either collective or distributive, or generic interpretat= ions, without clear rules about when each is to be meant, is to me just bad= ambiguity, no better than ambiguous scope, or allowing {lo broda} to possi= bly mean {lo du'u ma kau broda}. Once we can formally fully explain nat= ural languages, we can have a LoCCan just like them (though there would har= dly be any point in it).

I can envision some ways to systematically justify the distributive int= erpretation. {cmalu}, {barda} and friends could be defined to distribute ov= er its connected components, for example. That would capture xorxes intuiti= on that "comparing people's sizes is more common than comparing gr= oups of people's sizes" while allowing the collective meaning in c= onvenient contexts. I would still want something like that to be officially= and explicitly declared somewhere, though.


mu'o
mi'e .asiz.



On 5 January 2014 14:42, Jorge Lla= mb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun,= Jan 5, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gma= il.com> wrote:
The full sentence is
=A0 {lo prenu cu cmamau lo makcu poi dy ke&= #39;a se slabu}.
{lo prenu} refers to what turns out to be three Munchkins and the Witc= h of the North, and dy is Dorothy.

The plausible interpretation is of course distributive,
=A0 {ro lo p= renu cu cmamau ro lo makcu}.

I wouldn't interpret it that way. My interpretation is that for= the purposes of this comparison all the referents of "lo prenu" = are essentially the same size and count as one thing, all the referents of = "lo makcu poi ..." are essentially the same size and count as one= , and the former is smaller than the latter. (This could be called a generi= c reading, or "myopic singularization".) I very much doubt that t= he intention of such a sentence is to make a cross product comparison of ro= vs ro.
=A0=A0
But, if predicates are to be defined on plural variables, sho= uldn't the original sentence mean that the bunch of prenu is, collectiv= ely, smaller than the bunch of makcu?

That's an unlikely r= eading just because comparing people's sizes is more common than compar= ing groups of people's sizes. If instead of "cmamau" the pred= icate used was "fewer" ("klanyme'a"?) then the grou= p reading would be the one that makes more sense, since a single person doe= sn't have any such obvious quantity to compare as the cardinality of a = group.

Is the translation wrong? Or is the sentence ambiguous? If so= , how to unambiguously convey the collective interpretation?

To convey a comparison o= f the groups physical sizes I would say "lo prenu gunma cu cmamau lo g= unma be lo makcu poi ..."=A0

mu'o mi'= e xorxes

=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--001a11c2f08ad2262604ef3f55c0--