Received: from mail-pd0-f183.google.com ([209.85.192.183]:34407) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WIePO-00059a-UY for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:20:33 -0800 Received: by mail-pd0-f183.google.com with SMTP id w10sf243436pde.0 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:20:16 -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=rCkZm814UAm7xUbiCYxPU/gXXtRuIfZ1/2EekyTYhP0=; b=DpE6qraXSR76634DSLyilCFsZ40MUQo3y47s694pFHntw3xBfUt34xFImlmM4buXjx SlgXPIzziJ1zZlShn59hlXwdzn4AEF+J4yd2Uutf7WyuMrodsqA8LzCP+NQEILIeAwcP 3XetWs6lxOUK5ZWFCpOW7u+7a8iCTxeMXD1nYeCDeFRr7YUSZHetnWAu2//7s4SFh7/6 5qv/YVgvyddwGQpbKa2ZxcwCfnrbihXg9qGmzrJ+6FDYZAzP52xxjouq0k+ycuTu7W6G MXf2zl9pIZaPVDcNsuruQYMiAAk74Xgmr1XyskgsDhHxJTrO11d+5lQ56YQUDPrRDI2g 7vPg== 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=rCkZm814UAm7xUbiCYxPU/gXXtRuIfZ1/2EekyTYhP0=; b=TanuqMGYoq0enGz6D/UkIPJNh37beguwLZ5FW+6S3LPwrfz7FKZYfYCneEAPKNz0pM 3VDsBJNTAfVA/0wHCC2LTQ2b2ljt+lP+aC3f4ClUR2DkvaKTK/bfj98sP/IztbaMSiyF ww1sFMZh/AygsY7YyJZHRLqppJBX+ImSWGk+fDUAOju6yq979cx6ocEL3zYyK+pPWoIG qXCIm6qoNgRP81O0d9WPmo82g8vvdoSzK4UJc2eE0JZIYo/IBR6KcQ25jn+hjp+FS1A3 MYVEA6YP3vZ86bqn4mLPLCnqVrTSn0V56l29YT12SZLFcf0822kQg9OBXMHw8B+mb27H xQqw== X-Received: by 10.50.57.103 with SMTP id h7mr51054igq.15.1393420816770; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:20:16 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.28.18 with SMTP id x18ls426948igg.25.gmail; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:20:15 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.23.80 with SMTP id k16mr51242igf.16.1393420815767; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:20:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:20:14 -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_2958_4167243.1393420814433" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2958_4167243.1393420814433 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mercredi 26 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 06:49:07 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, guskant > > wrote: > >> >> Le mardi 25 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 07:59:04 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : >> >>> >>> It seems to me that it would be better to use "si'e" rather than "mei"= =20 >>> for that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of "me". If you allow things like= =20 >>> "so'i da poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" an= d=20 >>> you turn it into "pagbu". >>> >>> 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= . >> > > Right, but then you need an additional constraint on your=20 > pseudo-individuals: they must be either individuals themselves, or they= =20 > must be atomless, they cannot properly contain any individuals. By=20 > "non-individual" I assume you mean atomless, not containing any individua= ls=20 > at all, rather than merely not being an individual. > > Right. =20 > =20 > >> 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 .) >> > > It seems that nobody disagreed either. I can't say I understand the=20 > negative si'e, but I don't have a problem with the greater than one.=20 > =20 > >> 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. >> > > I'd keep "pagbu" as normal, and define si'e more carefully so that it can= =20 > cover more cases. > =20 > That is what I wish. =20 > 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 >> ... >> > > 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= =20 > jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i=20 > > Yes, and speakers may not want to change the unit every time 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 m= e=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=20 >>>> select not only {ko'a} but also any arbitrary {ko'e} {ko'i}... as {su'= o pa=20 >>>> 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 thing= s=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, beca= use=20 >>> there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do satisf= y=20 >>> "su'o mei".=20 >>> >>> Then all and only the pseudo-atoms will satisfy "pa mei", and only=20 >>> things composed of one or more pseudo-atoms will satisfy "su'o mei"..= =20 >>> >> >> Yes.=20 >> > > 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=20 > 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"= =20 > will be false. Without the additional restriction in (D1) "ko'a jo'u ko'e= =20 > su'o N mei" will be true for any positive N, because you only need ko'a a= s=20 > your starting point and then you can keep adding pieces of ko'e to count = up=20 > because the original (D1) doesn't require the add ons to be su'o mei. (Fo= r=20 > my definition, the additional restriction doesn't change anything, becaus= e=20 > everything satisfies it so it's not really any restriction.) > =20 > Right. I need (D1') for proper definition of {N mei} for non-individuals. I= =20 was implicitly requiring it as "non-conflict selection of {su'o pa mei}",= =20 but it should have been explicit. =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 o= f=20 >> {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only t= o=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 >> > > That's because "me" is supposed to mean "among", not "part of". Your=20 > thought is not restricted, you just have to choose the words that better= =20 > express your thoughts. > > The thought of "a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}" is not=20 related to the concept {part of} as long as {lo pa nanba} is a=20 non-individual referent related to other non-individual referents with=20 {me}. Non-individual {lo pa nanba} as well as "a half of" {lo pa nanba} is= =20 only an ordinary vertex of an infinite tree constructed with {me}. I said= =20 "a half of" because I don't know an appropriate short expression in=20 English. Only when a unit is equalized with an individual, a half of {lo pa= =20 nanba} is regarded as {part of}. Actually there is no other method for=20 expressing non-individual quantification; there is no choice of the words= =20 that better express the thought of non-individual with quantification.=20 If {M si'e} is properly defined so that M>1 is accepted, {lo PA pi broda}= =20 and {lo pi PA broda} may represent non-individual quantification, which are= =20 expanded to expressions with {M si'e}. If it is realized, the language=20 design will be more universal. =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_2958_4167243.1393420814433 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mercredi 26 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 06:49:07 UTC+9, x= orxes a =C3=A9crit :

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:= 04 AM, guskant <g= usni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Le mardi 25 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 07:59:0= 4 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit :

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 d= a poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" and you turn = it into "pagbu".

When {lo nanba} is non-i= ndividual, {so'i da poi me lo pa nanba} is not allowed. non-individual refe= rents cannot be in the domain of {so'i da}, because only individuals are al= lowed 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 containing any = individuals at all, rather than merely not being an individual.



Right.


 
 
If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} would have been better than {m= e} for non-individual referents. 
(I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other than P&= lt;=3D1, though nobody agreed: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lo= jban/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 w= ith 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 v= ery broadly so that x1 of {pagbu} can be larger than x2.

I'd keep "pagbu" as normal, and defi= ne si'e more carefully so that it can cover more cases.
 &nb= sp;


= That is what I wish.


 
Under this condition, if {P si'e} is used for countin= g up, a number followed by {si'e} should be changed every time another refe= rent 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 
<= br>


= Yes, and speakers may not want to change the unit every time 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. 

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 o= nly 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 restrictio= n.)
 

<= br>
Right. I need (D1') for proper definition of {N mei} for non-= individuals. I was implicitly requiring it as "non-conflict selection of {s= u'o pa mei}", but it should have been explicit.

 
Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumt= i and singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc bec= ome official, it is not the case, though.) Possibility of quantification on= non-individual referents are left only in expressions with inner quantifie= r. If inner quantifiers are allowed to non-individual referents, speakers w= ho regards {lo nanba} as non-individual consider that a half of {lo pa nanb= a} is also {me lo nanba}. If inner quantifier is given only to individual(s= ), the language restrict thought of speakers so that they should consi= der that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}". 

That's because "me" is supposed to m= ean "among", not "part of". Your thought is not restricted, you just have t= o choose the words that better express your thoughts.



The thought of "a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nanba}" is not= related to the concept {part of} as long as {lo pa nanba} is a non-individ= ual referent related to other non-individual referents with {me}. Non-indiv= idual {lo pa nanba} as well as "a half of" {lo pa nanba} is only an ordinar= y vertex of an infinite tree constructed with {me}. I said "a half of" beca= use I don't know an appropriate short expression in English. Only when a un= it is equalized with an individual, a half of {lo pa nanba} is regarded as = {part of}. Actually there is no other method for expressing non-individual = quantification; there is no choice of the words that better express the tho= ught of non-individual with quantification. 

= If {M si'e} is properly defined so that M>1 is accepted, {lo PA pi broda= } and {lo pi PA broda} may represent non-individual quantification, which a= re expanded to expressions with {M si'e}. If it is realized, the language d= esign will be more universal.  


--
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_2958_4167243.1393420814433--