Received: from mail-pa0-f62.google.com ([209.85.220.62]:61422) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WIIcL-0003w0-L6 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:04:23 -0800 Received: by mail-pa0-f62.google.com with SMTP id lj1sf2059154pab.7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:04:10 -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=A9K5jdj8+0tVu+9FF+eyS20hwSiL+GZG0RxwLmNRfNw=; b=gSGksys36vSqm5mDsDHTWZWY/Wx3AP7XIs5g+Rm4IDG80KetfF9ZrhoV7aV9UkDdfy pJCNLe/aBsyM94XdgmWIXENy/s9Qf4A4nxGcbdtyxTGlFSWKFnGLQA7zr6wavOqQToXn hrZ5iAnXooJtaNohM6zkamGpd+iNkf5qjMz56e+7uufAzragGYfv2Cd7fVZ81g7otT/b 3SEXSHyA6CAWABV3JxJFvjFnPg57QCw1Vmflmd+hqelao8Gttxoz4BuS0btzeQkMaevJ v4ip8D5/E3IZ1OB8in5vXveN2HtsmnCgZi/d+RUvrFLkgRmKaqrDRlCZY41LGPony90F g4NQ== 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=A9K5jdj8+0tVu+9FF+eyS20hwSiL+GZG0RxwLmNRfNw=; b=qqgbaacOd2DkX/xobehBs1TbmD4bVLI9eY0qEOpKE6VrTeTBjJTydKPuYu8e1MqqyK mhQUzRn11ilLdq5/3tRudjPlbRx4t7G7gMvHVSpZJqOmbaSqqNtF2w1t2ympZprCmh36 2lChj9m5S94B6Iliw/AgXHE9wFL+L7bhnK48gxNnsDL8Ac8Y4vG2CbmDJfPHIEZWJAWp y8tk8ABDiFnFxdi0OAem6u86FEGJEORA19DIW6tPSwI/gH0ykdAdWpL1aeJUjZKUHYcH e61HD8frZA7y8LDW59iuXvNf8wqCgho8JoLdzNy/TFaXCV95klwdaHqLvuxGX4HAzRBi Qfsw== X-Received: by 10.50.115.71 with SMTP id jm7mr54076igb.14.1393337050888; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:04:10 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.6.38 with SMTP id x6ls2381669igx.23.gmail; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:04:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.79.232 with SMTP id m8mr54432igx.12.1393337050213; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:04:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:04:08 -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_3819_4820166.1393337049051" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_3819_4820166.1393337049051 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mardi 25 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM, guskant > > wrote: >> >> >> 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 >> > > Right, which to me sounds like you want some things in the universe of= =20 > discourse that don't count as "somethings".=20 > =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= =20 >> use {N mei} to a particular referent of {lo nanba}, because the expressi= ons=20 >> of {N mei} and {lo N nanba} are useful for giving a mapping from an orde= r=20 >> of quantity into transitivity of {me}. These expressions facilitate=20 >> comparison of quantity between {ko'a me lo nanba} and {ko'e me lo nanba}= =20 >> without using other unit than what is defined by speakers. >> > > It seems to me that it would be better to use "si'e" rather than "mei" fo= r=20 > that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of "me". If you allow things like "so'i= =20 > da poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" and you tu= rn=20 > it into "pagbu". > =20 > When {lo nanba} is non-individual, {so'i da poi me lo pa nanba} is not=20 allowed. non-individual referents cannot be in the domain of {so'i da},=20 because only individuals are allowed in the domain of singular variables.= =20 Mapping from {N mei} into {me} of non-individual referents is only=20 non-surjective, and (D1) with (D2) reflects transitivity of {me}.=20 {me}-relation holds even if {N mei}-relation is applied. If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than {me}= =20 for non-individual referents.=20 (I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other than P<=3D1,= =20 though nobody agreed:=20 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .) If it is not allowed, then {si'e} is not convenient for counting up. According to the current definition: x1 number si'e x2 x1 pagbu x2 gi'e klani li number lo se gradu be x2 it seems that a number followed by {si'e} cannot be larger than 1 unless=20 {pagbu} is interpreted very broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger=20 than x2. Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for counting up, a number=20 followed by {si'e} should be changed every time another referent becomes to= =20 be considered. ko'a pa si'e i ko'a fi'u re si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e pa si'e i ko'a fi'u ci si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i pa si'e ... Speakers may not want change the number applied to {ko'a} in such a way.=20 Using {mei}, speakers can fix a number to the same referent even when=20 counting up. =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= =20 >>>>>> 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=20 >>>>>> (D3) lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda >>>>>> >>>>>> 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}. >>>> >>> > As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual referents may selec= t=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. >> > > What do you mean by "conflict"? Overlap? Or do you mean that some things= =20 > are selected as pseudo-atoms, so that, for example: > > ko'a su'o mei > ko'e su'o mei > ko'i goi ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o mei > > So ko'a and ko'e are pseudo-atoms, because nothing among them (besides=20 > themselves) satisfies "su'o mei", but "ko'i" is not a pseudo-atom, becaus= e=20 > there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do satisfy= =20 > "su'o mei".=20 > > Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei", and only things= =20 > composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o mei".. > =20 > Yes.=20 (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=20 >> referents. If you don't call it definition, you may exclude it from a se= t=20 >> of 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. >> > > "Defining a unit" sounds a lot to me like defining what counts as one,=20 > what the individuals are in our discourse.=20 > > Since what counts as an individual is context-dependent anyway, why add a= =20 > second layer? Why have first-class things (which count) and second-class= =20 > things (which don't count)?=20 > > Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumti and=20 singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc become=20 official, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantification on=20 non-individual referents are left only in expressions with inner=20 quantifier. If inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referents,= =20 speakers who regards {lo nanba} as non-individual consider that a half of= =20 {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only to= =20 individual(s), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they=20 should consider that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}".=20 =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_3819_4820166.1393337049051 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mardi 25 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorx= es a =C3=A9crit :

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:59 A= M, guskant <gusni= ...@gmail.com> wrote:

You give {su'o pa mei} to all referent= s of a universe of discourse,
while I give {su'o pa mei} to certa= in members of it, not to all. 

 Right, which to me sounds like you want some things in the unive= rse of discourse that don't count as "somethings". 
 
It is for the purpose of giving= expressions with {N mei} and {lo N broda} to non-individual referents.&nbs= p;

Even if speakers regard {lo nanba} as non-indiv= idual, they may want to use {N mei} to a particular referent of {lo nanba},= because the expressions of {N mei} and {lo N nanba} are useful for giving = a mapping from an order of quantity into transitivity of {me}. These expres= sions facilitate comparison of quantity between {ko'a me lo nanba} and {ko'= e me lo nanba} without using other unit than what is defined by speakers.

It seems to me that it would be bett= er to use "si'e" rather than "mei" for that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of= "me". If you allow things like "so'i da poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty muc= h destroy "me" as "among" and you turn it into "pagbu".
 


When {lo nanba} is non-individual, {so'i da poi me lo pa nanba} is = not allowed. non-individual referents cannot be in the domain of {so'i da},= because only individuals are allowed in the domain of singular variables. = Mapping from {N mei} into {me} of non-individual referents is only non-surj= ective, and (D1) with (D2) reflects transitivity of {me}. {me}-re= lation holds even if {N mei}-relation is applied.

= If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than {me= } for non-individual referents. 
(I have once suggested an i= nterpretation of {P si'e} for other than P<=3D1, though nobody agreed: h= ttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .)
If it is not allowed, then {si'e} is not convenient for counting up.
=

According to the current definition:
x1 numbe= r si'e x2 x= 1 pagbu x2 gi'e klani li number lo se gradu be x2
it seems that a= number followed by {si'e} cannot be larger than 1 unless {pagbu} is interp= reted very broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger than x2.
<= br>
Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for counting up, a = number followed by {si'e} should be changed every time another referent bec= omes to be considered.
ko'a pa si'e
i
ko'a fi= 'u re si'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e pa si'e
i
ko'a fi'u ci si= 'e ije ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i pa si'e
...

<= div>Speakers may not want change the number applied to {ko'a} in such a way= . 
Using {mei}, speakers can fix a number to the same refere= nt even when counting up.


 

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 (D1-7) 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}.

As for (D1-7), speakers who talk about non-individual= referents may select 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 o= ther.

What do you mean by "conflict"? Over= lap? Or do you mean that some things are selected as pseudo-atoms, so that,= for example:

ko'a su'o mei
ko'e su'o mei
ko'i goi ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o mei
So ko'a and ko'e are pseudo-atoms, because nothing among them (= besides themselves) satisfies "su'o mei", but "ko'i" is not a pseudo-atom, = because there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do sa= tisfy "su'o mei". 

Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei= ", and only things composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o = mei"..
 

=

Yes. 


(D1-7) is only a sample for discussion. Speakers arbi= trarily select referents to be {su'o pa mei}, not only {ko'a}.
In other words, (D1-7) gives a subjective unit to non-individu= al referents. If you don't call it definition, you may exclude it from a se= t of definitions on {N mei}. In any case, the meaning of {su'o pa mei} is e= ntrusted 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 are related with transitivity of {me}. I want to let= speakers have the right to define a unit.

"Defining a unit" sounds a lot to me like defining what coun= ts as one, what the individuals are in our discourse. 

<= /div>
Since what counts as an individual is context-dependent anyway, w= hy add a second layer? Why have first-class things (which count) and second= -class things (which don't count)? 



Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumti and= singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc become o= fficial, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantification on non-= individual referents are left only in expressions with inner quantifier. If= inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referents, speakers who re= gards {lo nanba} as non-individual consider that a half of {lo pa nanba} is= also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only to individual(s), th= e language restrict thought of speakers so that they should consider t= hat "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}". 


 

--
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_3819_4820166.1393337049051--