Received: from mail-ob0-f187.google.com ([209.85.214.187]:64123) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WIPsI-00005v-Ub for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:20 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f187.google.com with SMTP id vb8sf2057027obc.14 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:08 -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=KVzRk9fqBod5kAzMGEeAEBWtrPndnRBdXeBEYvwNMKU=; b=nFLrJ7J+/uY+y8ZENIKkn/sQAqB/iggevH5aL0Y9Ki5qodrci+KMF9wHBlngO1EnSg 04BDB0bO22Ad4GMAyhx5TyN0z0xqFmejEC7oom/hIYFo95e5OaZi7E2AXSz4L6WppgSM bJ2c68ZDFgU7mnYZ+BaVgaYj8QUY+6HgOXUHoZc8mWhdVyccJ2Xih6uMhpSSir4Km6Zb N6fuf5ALc+os+3h1KmGPaO4SLK+aC0Xd0cuZV8Q9mVZTv+ykiBwZIXhK9FaVKJTviqRw ccA0GO3YgBNKh1OD3kgLCknFbONG2Mjy8Mkxxy0BspIXxMOQ4Zxj4P4wd9+PH3Xt3L6a XDag== X-Received: by 10.50.111.11 with SMTP id ie11mr110610igb.2.1393364948719; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:08 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.120.67 with SMTP id la3ls6280igb.22.gmail; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:07 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.67.1.129 with SMTP id bg1mr1649242pad.8.1393364947952; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-x235.google.com (mail-ve0-x235.google.com [2607:f8b0:400c:c01::235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hh7si3697330vdb.1.2014.02.25.13.49.07 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::235; Received: by mail-ve0-x235.google.com with SMTP id jw12so1196232veb.26 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.247.231 with SMTP id yh7mr2369049vdc.34.1393364947741; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.221.72.74 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:49:07 -0800 (PST) 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> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:49:07 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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=001a1133c9aac0b26f04f3420e47 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --001a1133c9aac0b26f04f3420e47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, guskant wrote: > > Le mardi 25 f=E9vrier 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorxes a =E9crit : > >> >> It seems to me that it would be better 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 much 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. > Right, but then you need an additional constraint on your pseudo-individuals: they must be either individuals themselves, or they must be atomless, they cannot properly contain any individuals. By "non-individual" I assume you mean atomless, not containing any individuals at all, rather than merely not being an individual. > 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 interpretation of {P si'e} for other than P<=3D= 1, > though nobody agreed: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .) > It seems that nobody disagreed either. I can't say I understand the negative si'e, but I don't have a problem with the greater than one. > 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 > {pagbu} is interpreted very broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger > than x2. > I'd keep "pagbu" as normal, and define si'e more carefully so that it can cover more cases. > 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 becomes = 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 > ... > ko'a pa si'e ko'a gi'e fi'u re si'e ko'a jo'u ko'e gi'e fi'u ci si'e ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i 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 other. >>> >> >> What do you mean by "conflict"? Overlap? 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, becau= se >> there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do satisfy >> "su'o mei". >> >> Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei", and only thing= s >> composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o mei".. >> > > Yes. > You will also need to modify your (D1) to: (D1') ke'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'oi de poi me ke'a gi'e su'o mei zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei gi de na me da Otherwise, if ko'a and ko'e are both atomless "ko'a jo'u ko'e cu re mei" will be false. Without the additional restriction in (D1) "ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o N mei" will be true for any positive N, because you only need ko'a as your starting point and then you can keep adding pieces of ko'e to count up because the original (D1) doesn't require the add ons to be su'o mei. (For my definition, the additional restriction doesn't change anything, because everything satisfies it so it's not really any restriction.) > Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumti and > singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc become > official, 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 regards {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), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they > should consider that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}". > That's because "me" is supposed to mean "among", not "part of". Your thought is not restricted, you just have to choose the words that better express your thoughts. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --001a1133c9aac0b26f04f3420e47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:

Le mardi 25 f=E9vrier 2014 07:59:04 U= TC+9, xorxes a =E9crit=A0:

It seems to me that it would be better to use "si'e" rather t= han "mei" for that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of &quo= t;me". If you allow things like "so'i da poi me lo pa nanba&q= uot; you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" and you tu= rn it into "pagbu".

When {lo nanba} is non-i= ndividual, {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 individual= s are allowed in the domain of singular variables.

Right, but then you need an addition= al constraint on your pseudo-individuals: they must be either individuals t= hemselves, or they must be atomless, they cannot properly contain any indiv= iduals. By "non-individual" I assume you mean atomless, not conta= ining any individuals at all, rather than merely not being an individual.

=A0
If {P s= i'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than {m= e} for non-individual referents.=A0
(I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other tha= n P<=3D1, though nobody agreed: https://groups.google= .com/d/msg/lojban/6LRA8XntyGc/6MFRVIfGDMMJ .)

It seems that nobody disagreed eithe= r. I can't say I understand the negative si'e, but I don't have= a problem with the greater than one.=A0
=A0
According to the current definition:
=
x1 number si'e x2 x1 p= agbu 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 i= nterpreted very broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger than x2.

I'd keep "pagbu" as no= rmal, and define si'e more carefully so that it can cover more cases.
=A0=A0
Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for cou= nting up, a number followed by {si'e} should be changed every time anot= her referent becomes 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&#= 39;a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i pa si'e
...

ko'a pa si'e ko'a gi'= ;e fi'u re si'e ko'a jo'u ko'e gi'e fi'u ci si&= #39;e ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i=A0



Using {ke'a}, our definitions are described as follows:
(D1-7) ko'a su'o pa mei
(D1) ke'a su&= #39;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 =A0:=3D ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'o N= +1 mei=A0
(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_.=A0
Any other referents that are {me ko'a} do not sat= isfy {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&#= 39;t conflict each other.

What do you mean by "conflict&q= uot;? Overlap? 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&= #39;o mei", but "ko'i" is not a pseudo-atom, because the= re are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do satisfy &= quot;su'o mei".=A0

Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "p= a mei", and only things composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will sati= sfy "su'o mei"..=A0

Yes.=A0

You wi= ll also need to modify your (D1) to:

=A0(D1') = ke'a su'o N mei :=3D su'oi da poi me ke'a ku'o su'o= i de poi me ke'a gi'e su'o mei zo'u ge da su'o N-1 mei = gi de na me da

Otherwise, if ko'a and ko'e are both atomless &= quot;ko'a jo'u ko'e cu re mei" will be false. Without the = additional restriction in (D1) "ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o N = mei" will be true for any positive N, because you only need ko'a a= s your starting point and then you can keep adding pieces of ko'e to co= unt up because the original (D1) doesn't require the add ons to be su&#= 39;o mei. (For my definition, the additional restriction doesn't change= anything, because everything satisfies it so it's not really any restr= iction.)
=A0
=
Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumt= i and singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi= etc become official, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantific= ation on non-individual referents are left only in expressions with inner q= uantifier. If inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referents, sp= eakers who regards {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 indi= vidual(s), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they should=A0= consider that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}".=A0<= /div>

That's because "me" is= supposed to mean "among", not "part of". Your thought = is not restricted, you just have to choose the words that better express yo= ur thoughts.

=A0mu'o mi'e xorxes

<= /div>

--
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.
--001a1133c9aac0b26f04f3420e47--