Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com>
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de>
	<5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
	<52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
	<a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 14:44:47 -0200
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cqcmhdc2S-2a7t32Sr5siHkrQOmgYmseosM39Pch2dNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dcf420b0c9d04f1e7d3bc
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--047d7b6dcf420b0c9d04f1e7d3bc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> As long as PA of {lo PA broda} is defined as zilkancu_2, {lo no broda}
> should be meaningful.
> From that definition, I guess that PA should be a member of a countable
> set, a rational number.
> There is no other information about this PA, then it is natural that {lo
> no broda} is meaningful.
>

I think the definition works well for natural numbers (i.e. positive
integers), anything else is iffy. Even things like "lo pa pi mu broda" I
find questionable, if not outright wrong.


Also from a practical point of view, it is better to give {lo no broda}
> some reasonable meaning:
>
> - lo xo prenu cu jmaji gi'e jukpa gi'e citka
>  - no
>
> Such a conversation is quite natural, and cannot be replaced by an outer
> quantifier in a simple way because it involves collectivity and
> distributivity. It should not be excluded from the language.
>

I agree that "lo no prenu" in such a context will be naturally interpreted
as "no'oi prenu" (the plural "no"). But I doubt that it can be consistently
worked into the system. For one thing, you open the door to things that
look like referring terms but don't actually refer to anything. (We already
have some of those, like "zi'o", but at least they are now confined to
KOhA.)


Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one or more
> individuals" is misleading for me.
> The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be first
> given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept
> "individual" is only a special case of "something in a domain of plural
> variable" as defined above. This is not my particular way of thinking, but
> general way of plural logic.
>

The problem with doing what you suggest, is that whatever term you choose
for that in the metalanguage will inevitably find its way into the language
at some point, and then in the language it will refer to individuals (as it
does refer to meta-individuals in the metalanguage) and you have to start
all over with something else. I think "one or more individuals" is
healthier. But if you prefer some other terminology there's nothing
stopping you from writing up definitions with your preferred point of view.


By the way, based on the fact that {lo broda} is plural constant, another
> problem occurs.
> {lo broda} is defined as {zo'e}, and {zo'e} is defined as unspecific value.
>

It's defined as "elliptical/unspecified". It has a value or values, they
are just not given explicitly.


> When {lo broda} is a plural constant, it is a specific value, and
> contradicts the definition of {zo'e}.
> My understanding is that {zo'e} is essentially a free variable, and a
> plural constant is implicitly substituted when a universe of discourse is
> given. If it is correct, such a description should be included on the gadri
> or zo'e page. If it is incorrect, some reasonable explanation is necessary.
>

An expression with a free variable doesn't have a truth value, it's not a
complete proposition. An expression with "zo'e" is a complete proposition,
so zo'e can't be a free variable. "ke'a" and "ce'u" are free variables
since the bridi they appear in are incomplete and don't have a truth value
by themselves.

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.

--047d7b6dcf420b0c9d04f1e7d3bc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:gusni.kantu@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gusni.kantu@gmail.com</a>&gt=
;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D""><div><br></=
div></div><div>As long as PA of {lo PA broda} is defined as zilkancu_2, {lo=
 no broda} should be meaningful.</div>
<div>From that definition, I guess that PA should be a member of a countabl=
e set, a rational number.</div><div>There is no other information about thi=
s PA, then it is natural that {lo no broda} is meaningful.</div></div></blo=
ckquote>
<div><br></div><div>I think the definition works well for natural numbers (=
i.e. positive integers), anything else is iffy. Even things like &quot;lo p=
a pi mu broda&quot; I find questionable, if not outright wrong.</div><div>
=A0=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
<div>Also from a practical point of view, it is better to give {lo no broda=
} some reasonable meaning:</div>
<div><br></div><div>- lo xo prenu cu jmaji gi&#39;e jukpa gi&#39;e citka</d=
iv><div>=A0- no</div><div><br></div><div>Such a conversation is quite natur=
al, and cannot be replaced by an outer quantifier in a simple way because i=
t involves collectivity and distributivity. It should not be excluded from =
the language.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that &quot;lo no prenu&quot;=
 in such a context will be naturally interpreted as &quot;no&#39;oi prenu&q=
uot; (the plural &quot;no&quot;). But I doubt that it can be consistently w=
orked into the system. For one thing, you open the door to things that look=
 like referring terms but don&#39;t actually refer to anything. (We already=
 have some of those, like &quot;zi&#39;o&quot;, but at least they are now c=
onfined to KOhA.)</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"lt=
r"><div>Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable &quot;on=
e or more individuals&quot; is misleading for me.</div>
<div>The term for &quot;something in a domain of plural variable&quot; shou=
ld be first given; after that &quot;individual&quot; is defined using it. T=
he concept &quot;individual&quot; is only a special case of &quot;something=
 in a domain of plural variable&quot; as defined above. This is not my part=
icular way of thinking, but general way of plural logic.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The problem with doing what you sugg=
est, is that whatever term you choose for that in the metalanguage will ine=
vitably find its way into the language at some point, and then in the langu=
age it will refer to individuals (as it does refer to meta-individuals in t=
he metalanguage) and you have to start all over with something else. I thin=
k &quot;one or more individuals&quot; is healthier. But if you prefer some =
other terminology there&#39;s nothing stopping you from writing up definiti=
ons with your preferred point of view.</div>
<div>=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr=
"><div>By the way, based on the fact that {lo broda} is plural constant, an=
other problem occurs.<br>
</div><div>{lo broda} is defined as {zo&#39;e}, and {zo&#39;e} is defined a=
s unspecific value.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It&#39;s de=
fined as &quot;elliptical/unspecified&quot;. It has a value or values, they=
 are just not given explicitly.=A0</div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>When {lo=
 broda} is a plural constant, it is a specific value, and contradicts the d=
efinition of {zo&#39;e}.=A0</div>
<div>My understanding is that {zo&#39;e} is essentially a free variable, an=
d a plural constant is implicitly substituted when a universe of discourse =
is given. If it is correct, such a description should be included on the ga=
dri or zo&#39;e page. If it is incorrect, some reasonable explanation is ne=
cessary.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>An expression with a free variable d=
oesn&#39;t have a truth value, it&#39;s not a complete proposition. An expr=
ession with &quot;zo&#39;e&quot; is a complete proposition, so zo&#39;e can=
&#39;t be a free variable. &quot;ke&#39;a&quot; and &quot;ce&#39;u&quot; ar=
e free variables since the bridi they appear in are incomplete and don&#39;=
t have a truth value by themselves.</div>
<div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></di=
v></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--047d7b6dcf420b0c9d04f1e7d3bc--