Received: from mail-ig0-f185.google.com ([209.85.213.185]:61112) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WB5fN-000899-Fw for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:49:45 -0800 Received: by mail-ig0-f185.google.com with SMTP id uq10sf304054igb.2 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:49:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-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=mn6RiewG1ROinhIAJzasDFId/PLniv+HPa5oEIQRYAc=; b=sUky6VQiYS1i1YO1bEvkedfGLmQ6Qr2IWw+/yux7pWazg22SynqMKHiPAbhjUQEHF8 jU51F8eEpfGphprZabf0zs8yCsmCmpBXQ4ciU3zVrzTQacgHRlb72BJerTz5NdpdLUZ6 izzW8vHxS3Tz7Zq5jVHRR9z45JoMVE7NomgiGL8Z1r23rYoqC1rezrlLcxbNw5IRr6LL pQK+jmRe9dDvM47OFE9bTsGOA+ulBeZNP64ZBVWtubBi4X4pTylgh7lG4CLU7cO02bgz vStaZudJivazCxN0PERonpET+f6pZUTOmBpCUH0X9TY4RmwzdvVlRZEQ6CPJdZhFc3t2 LjnA== X-Received: by 10.140.27.50 with SMTP id 47mr32516qgw.35.1391618971277; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:49:31 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.85.133 with SMTP id n5ls206515qgd.64.gmail; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:49:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.236.7.78 with SMTP id 54mr15346734yho.39.1391618970544; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.15.18]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fp7si6630738vdc.1.2014.02.05.08.49.30 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18; Received: from [192.168.2.108] ([93.220.99.212]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M9eHT-1W5H301MvH-00CzMl for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:49:29 +0100 Message-ID: <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:49:34 +0100 From: selpa'i User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo References: In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:Qq78KqPiqtVTJnYlTqEy25nMavxEYz6s5zEgdTIkgy8Nl+1Yfuj SmFXwtOSaRCPtCSVRyNiATx1A8tVdedGX7xunL0++nSl/y+04Co39LA4yHBgH77vVN9XZiI xeE4za3klSOiXU2If83K7EKH/3kcrrAwSC7YfqHfG0mWhh2NRbhs0OQlpUHjLxv4XQmF00I bzD+VRybygTLoE5ik3ZQg== X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / la .dan. cu cusku di'e > Using zo'e directly is obviously fruitless since xorlo seems to > influence how both zo'e, and how noi work: together they remove our abilities to > explicitly talk about individuals. I don't think {noi} changed at all. {zo'e} allows plural reference, but that isn't new either. > This make me assume that it also affects the > da-family, so {pa xanto} is also out of the question. This comes down to whether or not {da} allows for plural variables. Since plural reference is so common in Lojban, it would make sense for {da} to also allow plural variables, but singular variables also have advantages. Imagine {za'a lo ci xanto cu va cadzu} to set the context. Now, it all depends on on {da}'s plurality what {da va cadzu} can mean. Clearly, we just saw that {lo ci xanto} is a cadzu1, so it should be a possible value for the {da}. The downside to this is that with plural variables, the one X in {pa lo ci xanto} could be all three elephants (although a distributive handling of {me}'s x1 could fix that, or in other words, by saying that {mi'o na me mi'o}), whereas singular variables could only pick out an individual elephant from {lo ci xanto}. So singular variables are simpler and avoid certain problems, like the {pa xanto} one. On the other hand, it would mean that we can't say {da simxu lo ka prami} for "There are some X who love each other", and we'd have to use more complicated mechanisms for that, like {da poi su'o mei cu simxu lo ka prami} (which isn't *that* bad). Personally I would be all but opposed to the idea of having plural variables to along with the plural reference while keeping the simplicity of singular quantification, but I probably can't have my cake and eat it, too. I would not want two sets of quantifers, for eaxmple. Another idea would be to have each selbri place decide if it's distributive or not, but I'm not sure I like that very much. So the more practical solution right now seems to be to stick with singular variables, even though it breaks the {simxu} example above and can sometimes be counter-intuitive in a language full of plural reference. mi'e la selpa'i mu'o -- 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.