Received: from mail-pd0-f188.google.com ([209.85.192.188]:48265) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WHv82-0000Ra-7a for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:59:35 -0800 Received: by mail-pd0-f188.google.com with SMTP id z10sf204584pdj.5 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:59:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=M7ivxE1v46wOA8hxbdzMAb7huwVQo1HmKIVaEXeXZhU=; b=TgMo0wPds9+E3wTOeEtfcKuyaiv6fmDiB5l4uJ8ppAZgs7eLN/tA127F69BnyqB5Xu V4FJ79emidCI956sTj1nADkrzbon+ysvroFNc3lMpUSVoy7VjYo83njFgoYnR/gMITDZ bAwly6QvvqorECsT31z04HZx1dFwoiu6wVZrcr7Xp2sF1RH/Gf6KfPPhb1NnF2GiMyzA OkZaWTrn+aTtAzw9nZmXhbJB9cbWIyEbj0F7ru7Yhq0QSieDXKWlWbHohf8Bwn4t++Rf MMY5Afw2JTUywEQ52ym2nNAaa9PTunH9oDt/LQKu4fTAN4114Do9ulEYCEaEE7Y0B6tN 1z+A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=M7ivxE1v46wOA8hxbdzMAb7huwVQo1HmKIVaEXeXZhU=; b=lgENAnZe+YVNV2TlEnKaQLBek27xZI7mJoAQ6QUq0oOyYMEMmebpSy9TcFxNmXpWsR aLLLRoBQ8TBYiug/TXQX99cMS2gQj/zhUYyhOI6M53lztpGc9kY88P56AE7p/Cld+HmZ Cuk/IqdSPgh7T+UcECC656SkgSPPfDWWxFlp6/ltJt0bTpbsTlCccXdMd2qdEzustEdf ox8bZoxee7PXoNW3bjtrhJGJXuDuBCL9C5iNQoQuVtkW05n/4sD/vdVXQz4oEbUVM7yd NXasGTmZRftSUM/suev9F/krtzrtGx7gCer5QmlFXThHdZ+Ymi6bmHXGsK3ncMOe3MK1 wYkw== X-Received: by 10.50.66.133 with SMTP id f5mr297613igt.13.1393246759214; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:59:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.176.161 with SMTP id cj1ls2153517igc.33.gmail; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:59:18 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.112.101 with SMTP id ip5mr334772igb.1.1393246758512; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:59:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 04:59:16 -0800 (PST) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com> <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com> <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com> <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de> <348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com> <52F776EE.6070406@gmx.de> <6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@googlegroups.com> <52F7A4D5.5070106@gmx.de> <56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com> <52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de> <52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de> <1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@googlegroups.com> <68bacba4-a957-481c-ba00-211db2de8dc3@googlegroups.com> <2f4f0766-1f52-46f0-80af-b4de86d9b5bd@googlegroups.com> <618e6524-d7f0-46c9-8d0b-bbee2dd0cd41@googlegroups.com> <36c4c2b2-8f8c-4d44-ac8e-48c02d45a233@googlegroups.com> <4b6b2cb9-51e5-47f6-97a9-2dec16406864@googlegroups.com> <390f1b9f-6edd-42f2-8474-ad1f3610cca3@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@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="----=_Part_546_10386064.1393246756853" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_546_10386064.1393246756853 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le lundi 24 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 10:38:21 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : > > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 2:07 PM, guskant > > wrote: > >> >> You give {su'o pa mei} to all the referent that are individual(s) of a= =20 >> universe of discourse,=20 >> > > No, not just individuals. Everything and anything satisfies "su'o pa mei"= ,=20 > including any non-individuals that there may be in the universe of=20 > discourse.. > Sorry, you are right, though {ro'oi da su'o pa mei} + (D1) (D2) (D3)=20 excludes non-individual referents from expressions with {N mei} and {lo N= =20 broda}. I correct my sentence as follows: You give {su'o pa mei} to all referents of a universe of discourse, while I give {su'o pa mei} to certain members of it, not to all.=20 =20 > >> while I give {su'o pa mei} to certain members of it, including=20 >> non-indiviidual members, not to all.=20 >> > > But why? Why do you want some things not to satisfy "su'o pa mei" which= =20 > basically should mean "x1 is/are something(s)"? You still haven't explain= ed=20 > why you want to define "su'o pa mei" in such a particular way. =20 > > It is for the purpose of giving expressions with {N mei} and {lo N broda}= =20 to non-individual referents.=20 Even if speakers regard {lo nanba} as non-individual, they may want to use= =20 {N mei} to a particular referent of {lo nanba}, because the expressions of= =20 {N mei} and {lo N nanba} are useful for giving a mapping from an order of= =20 quantity into transitivity of {me}. These expressions facilitate comparison= =20 of quantity between {ko'a me lo nanba} and {ko'e me lo nanba} without using= =20 other unit than what is defined by speakers. =20 > =20 > >> Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows: >>>> (D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei >>>> (D1) ke'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke= 'a=20 >>>> zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da >>>> (D2) ke'a N mei :=3D ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei=20 >>>> (D3) lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda >>>> >>>> When (D1) and (D2) are applied to a particular sumti, ke'a are replace= d=20 >>>> with it. As for (D3), ke'a is in noi-clause, and it is already fixed t= o=20 >>>> zo'e, and is not replaced with another sumti, of course.=20 >>>> >>>> Because (D1-7) defines only for {ko'a}, (D1) (D2) (D3) are valid only= =20 >>>> for sumti that involves a referent of {ko'a} such as {ko'e noi ko'a me= =20 >>>> ke'a}, {ko'i no'u ko'a jo'u ko'o} etc. (D1) (D2) (D3) are not used for= =20 >>>> other sumti unless (D1-7) is applied to one of the referents that is= =20 >>>> involved by the sumti. >>>> >>> >>> If D1-7 defines only for ko'a, then it is not necessarily valid for=20 >>> ro'oi da poi me ko'a. You need "ro'oi da poi me ko'a cu su'o mei" if yo= u=20 >>> want it to be valid for anything among ko'a. But that won't make it val= id=20 >>> for ko'a jo'u ko'o if something in ko'o is not in ko'a.=20 >>> >> >> >> No. When (D1-7) defines for {ko'a}, the referent of {ko'a} satisfies=20 >> {su'o pa mei} _non-distributively_.=20 >> > Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not satisfy {su'o pa mei}. >> > > You don't know, that's not part of D1-7. If that's what you want, then yo= u=20 > need something like: > > (D1-8) ke'a su'o pa mei :=3D ke'a du ko'a > > Now you would have a full definition, and we would know that only ko'a=20 > satisfies "su'o pa mei", while everything else doesn't.=20 > > With (D1-7) as is, we know that ko'a satisfies "su'o pa mei" but we have= =20 > no way of knowing whether anything else does.=20 > > (D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei=20 with (D1) (D2) will make {ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o pa mei} true. (D1-8)=20 contradicts it. As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual referents may select= =20 not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}... as {su'o pa mei} as= =20 long as the selected referents don't conflict each other. (D1-7) is only a sample for discussion. Speakers arbitrarily select=20 referents to be {su'o pa mei}, not only {ko'a}. In other words, (D1-7) gives a subjective unit to non-individual referents.= =20 If you don't call it definition, you may exclude it from a set of=20 definitions on {N mei}. In any case, the meaning of {su'o pa mei} is=20 entrusted to speakers, and it is not necessarily {ro'oi da su'o pa mei}. Defining {su'o pa mei} involves giving a unit to a set of referents that=20 are related with transitivity of {me}. I want to let speakers have the=20 right to define a unit. =20 > =20 > >> For example, suppose that a speaker regards {lo nanba} is=20 >>>>> non-individual: >>>>> >>>>>> ro'oi da poi me lo nanba ku'o su'oi de poi me lo nanba zo'u de me da= =20 >>>>>> ijenai da me de >>>>>> >>>>>> That is, the speaker regards a half of {lo nanba} is also {me lo=20 >>>>>> nanba}.=20 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>>> Even though there is no individual {lo nanba}, an expression {N mei}= =20 >>>>>> is available with (D1-7) (D1) (D2) (D3). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No: >>>>> >>>>> "lo nanba cu su'o pa mei" is true >>>>> "lo nanba cu su'o re mei" is true >>>>> "lo nanba cu su'o ci mei" is true >>>>> >>>> >>>> I call them {lo nanba xi re} and {lo nanba xi ci} respectively for=20 >>>> convenience. >>>> >>> >>> But it's the same "lo nanba"!=20 >>> >>> lo nanba cu su'o pa mei gi'e su'o re mei gi'e su'o ci mei gi'e ..." is= =20 >>> true.=20 >>> >> >> >> It cannot be true when=20 >> (D1-7} lo nanba cu su'o pa mei >> is defined to {lo nanba}.=20 >> >> In the definition=20 >> >> (D1) lo nanba cu su'o re mei :=3D su'oi da poi me lo nanba ku'o su'oi de= =20 >> poi me lo nanba zo'u ge da su'o pa mei gi de na me da >> >> {da su'o pa mei} is true only for the referent of {lo nanba} used in=20 >> (D1-7), that is, {lo nanba} itself, and it satisfies {su'o pa mei}=20 >> _non-distributively_. The other referents in the domain of {da poi me lo= =20 >> nanba} do not satisfy {da su'o pa mei}.=20 >> > > With the definition you gave, there's no way of knowing what else besides= =20 > "lo nanba" will satisfy "su'o pa mei". If you mean something like (D1-8)= =20 > instead of (D1-7) then yes, "lo nanba cu su'o re mei" will be false, and= =20 > "lo nanba cu pa mei" will be true. "mi pa mei" will also be false, "mi jo= 'u=20 > do re mei" will be false, and so on. How can you possibly justify a=20 > definition like that for these predicates? They end up meaning nothing li= ke=20 > "is one", "are two", "are three", and so on.=20 > > Those definitions, with either (D1-7) or (D1-8), just don't make any sens= e=20 > to me. With (D1-7) it's not even a complete definition. > > I will stick with these (using "ko'a" as a place-holder): > > (D0) ko'a su'o pa mei :=3D su'oi da me ko'a > (D1) ko'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ko'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ko'a= =20 > zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da [N>=3D2] > (D2) ko'a N mei :=3D ko'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei [N>=3D1]=20 > (D3) lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda > > The meaning of {su'o pa mei} with (D1)(D2)(D3) gives a subjective unit that= =20 is not necessarily regarded as an individual. It depends on context, and=20 not defined for common use. I prefer leaving it as an undefined predicate,= =20 not restricted with {ro'oi da su'o pa mei}, neither (D0). A unit of=20 counting is to be defined by speakers according to context. Giving this vagueness to a unit is not strange. Even if a speaker regards= =20 {lo nanba} as an individual, selection of referent to be an individual=20 depends on context. On the other hand, if a speaker regards {lo nanba} as= =20 non-individual, selection of referent to be a unit depends on context.=20 --=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. ------=_Part_546_10386064.1393246756853 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le lundi 24 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 10:38:21 UTC+9, xorx= es a =C3=A9crit :

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 2:07 P= M, guskant <gusni= ...@gmail.com> wrote:

You give {= su'o pa mei} to all the referent that are individual(s) of a universe of di= scourse,

No, not just individuals. Everything= and anything satisfies "su'o pa mei", including any non-individuals that t= here may be in the universe of discourse..


Sorry, you are right, though {ro'oi = da su'o pa mei} + (D1) (D2) (D3) excludes non-individual referents from exp= ressions with {N mei} and {lo N broda}.
I correct my sentence as = follows:

You give {su'o pa mei} to all referents o= f a universe of discourse,
while I give {su'o pa mei} to certain = members of it, not to all. 


 
while I give {su'o pa mei} to certai= n members of it, including non-indiviidual members, not to all.

But why? Why do you want some things= not to satisfy "su'o pa mei" which basically should mean "x1 is/are someth= ing(s)"? You still haven't explained why you want to define "su'o pa mei" i= n such a particular way.  



It is for the purpose of giving expressions with {N mei} and {lo N br= oda} to non-individual referents. 

Even if sp= eakers regard {lo nanba} as non-individual, they may want to use {N mei} to= a particular referent of {lo nanba}, because the expressions of {N mei} an= d {lo N nanba} are useful for giving a mapping from an order of quantity in= to transitivity of {me}. These expressions facilitate comparison of quantit= y between {ko'a me lo nanba} and {ko'e me lo nanba} without using other uni= t than what is defined by speakers.


 
=
 
Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows:
(D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei
(D1) ke'a su'o N mei :=3D= su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi = de na me da
(D2) ke'a N mei  :=3D ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei 
(D3) lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda
=
When (D1) and (D2) are applied to a particular sumti, = ke'a are replaced with it. As for (D3), ke'a is in noi-clause, and it is al= ready fixed to zo'e, and is not replaced with another sumti, of course= . 

Because (D1-7) defines only for {ko'a}, (D1) (D2) (D3) = are valid only for sumti that involves a referent of {ko'a} such as {ko'e n= oi ko'a me ke'a}, {ko'i no'u ko'a jo'u ko'o} etc. (D1) (D2) (D3) are not us= ed for other sumti unless (D1-7) is applied to one of the referents that is= involved by the sumti.

If D1-7 defines only for ko'a, then = it is not necessarily valid for ro'oi da poi me ko'a. You need "ro'oi da po= i me ko'a cu su'o mei" if you want it to be valid for anything among ko'a. = But that won't make it valid for ko'a jo'u ko'o if something in ko'o is not= in ko'a. 


No.= When (D1-7) defines for {ko'a}, the referent of {ko'a} satisfies {su'o pa = mei} _non-distributively_. 
Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not satisfy= {su'o pa mei}.

You don't know,= that's not part of D1-7. If that's what you want, then you need something = like:

(D1-8) ke'a su'o pa mei :=3D ke'a du ko'a
Now you would have a full definition, and we would know that on= ly ko'a satisfies "su'o pa mei", while everything else doesn't. 

With (D1-7) as is, we know that ko'a satisfies "su'o pa= mei" but we have no way of knowing whether anything else does. 
=



(D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei 
with (D1) (D2) will make {ko'= a jo'u ko'e su'o pa mei} true. (D1-8) contradicts it.

<= div>As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual referents may sel= ect not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}... as {su'o pa mei= } as long as the selected referents don't conflict each other.
(D= 1-7) is only a sample for discussion. Speakers arbitrarily select referents= to be {su'o pa mei}, not only {ko'a}.

In other wo= rds, (D1-7) gives a subjective unit to non-individual referents. If you don= 't call it definition, you may exclude it from a set of definitions on {N m= ei}. In any case, the meaning of {su'o pa mei} is entrusted to speakers, an= d it is not necessarily {ro'oi da su'o pa mei}.

De= fining {su'o pa mei} involves giving a unit to a set of referents that= are related with transitivity of {me}. I want to let speakers have th= e right to define a unit.


&nbs= p;
=
 
  &nb= sp; For example, suppose that a speaker regards {lo nanba} is non-individua= l:
ro'oi da poi me lo nanba ku'o su'oi de poi me lo nanb= a zo'u de me da ijenai da me de

That is, the speak= er regards a half of {lo nanba} is also {me lo nanba}. 

Yes.
 
Even though there is no individual {lo nanba}, an exp= ression {N mei} is available with (D1-7) (D1) (D2) (D3).

No:

"lo nanba cu su'o pa= mei" is true
"lo nanba cu su'o re mei" is true
"lo nanba cu su'o ci mei" = is true

I cal= l them {lo nanba xi re} and {lo nanba xi ci} respectively for convenience.<= /div>

But it's the same "lo nanba"! <= /div>

lo nanba cu su'o pa mei gi'e su'o re mei gi'e su'o= ci mei gi'e ..." is true. 


It cannot= be true when 
(D1-7} lo nanba cu su'o pa mei
is d= efined to {lo nanba}. 

In the definition = ;

(D1) lo nanba cu su'o re mei :=3D su'oi da poi me lo na= nba ku'o su'oi de poi me lo nanba zo'u ge da su'o pa mei gi de na me da

{da su'o pa mei} is true only for the referent of {lo= nanba} used in (D1-7), that is, {lo nanba} itself, and it satisfies {su'o = pa mei} _non-distributively_. The other referents in the domain of {da poi = me lo nanba} do not satisfy {da su'o pa mei}.

With the definition you gave, there'= s no way of knowing what else besides "lo nanba" will satisfy "su'o pa mei"= . If you mean something like (D1-8) instead of (D1-7) then yes, "lo nanba c= u su'o re mei" will be false, and "lo nanba cu pa mei" will be true. "mi pa= mei" will also be false, "mi jo'u do re mei" will be false, and so on. How= can you possibly justify a definition like that for these predicates? They= end up meaning nothing like "is one", "are two", "are three", and so on.&n= bsp;

Those definitions, with either (D1-7) or (D1-8), just d= on't make any sense to me. With (D1-7) it's not even a complete definition.=

I will stick with these (using "ko'a" as a place-= holder):

(D0) ko'a su'o pa mei :=3D su'oi da me ko'a
<= div>(D1) ko'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ko'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ko'= a zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da  [N>=3D2]
(D2) ko'a N mei  :=3D ko'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N+1 mei  = ;[N>=3D1] 
(D3) lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'= e broda


<= /div>

The meaning of {su'o pa mei} with (D1)(D2)(D3) giv= es a subjective unit that is not necessarily regarded as an individual. It = depends on context, and not defined for common use. I prefer leaving it as = an undefined predicate, not restricted with {ro'oi da su'o pa mei}, neither= (D0). A unit of counting is to be defined by speakers according to context= .

Giving this vagueness to a unit is not strange. = Even if a speaker regards {lo nanba} as an individual, selection of referen= t to be an individual depends on context. On the other hand, if a speaker r= egards {lo nanba} as non-individual, selection of referent to be a unit dep= ends on context. 



--
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.
------=_Part_546_10386064.1393246756853--