Received: from mail-wg0-f63.google.com ([74.125.82.63]:61974) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WXDHQ-0008S6-Ct for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:35 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f63.google.com with SMTP id k14sf475021wgh.28 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT) 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=+ehfc1BqS+HUDrm08iEPs/1R/ESQkAh2N6aNnJkUg6U=; b=OR6F0v7R9eiUejlWR7C48JwZBvLILaqwlyXVa5SlRRaBjC8aswjnkCJQ2DMRlSwdRy 4bflsPO4DLkSlH/320gT/UYWh8Q7vxF9pF7cyLklNQx5PoEBo1DCSrq8G9fEDnMjRtgh Uw8+B58y6iezC3RL5hC3eDD8bWSn5ElJaF1cRo8l6KsQfO8d1GnYmcFS3RdF38vG6Rfd A6OIdiAO8HC6BujSCrRNwtGU3Cv0vuS/1d7sRhjsEg7BNeX95X7b/E/DcLubgsL3yOa6 QJDnlXjWDppVshgSa2I3YuqZCgJkcDvn2Xh68GaGnusKWbswwVxEqfLsIix1irei4stU dqeQ== X-Received: by 10.152.204.38 with SMTP id kv6mr12494lac.38.1396891452595; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.217.103 with SMTP id ox7ls337677lac.55.gmail; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.135.8 with SMTP id po8mr444019lbb.12.1396891452186; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p5si357359wib.0.2014.04.07.10.24.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::230; Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x48so6863260wes.7 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.81.98 with SMTP id z2mr43841202wjx.12.1396891452043; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.25.163 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:24:11 -0700 (PDT) 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: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:24:11 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@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=047d7bd6ba70c9f71504f6772281 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --047d7bd6ba70c9f71504f6772281 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The question to all involved in this this discussion. 1. Has the full resume been recorded anywhere? 2. What is the definition of lu'o? Still loi=3Dlu'o ro lo? 3. What's the definition of {lu'a}? lu'a lo =3D lo me lo? 2014-02-26 17:20 GMT+04:00 guskant : > > > 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" >>>> for that purpose, and "pagbu" instead of "me". If you allow things lik= e >>>> "so'i da poi me lo pa nanba" you pretty much destroy "me" as "among" a= nd >>>> 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 variable= s. >>> >> >> 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 individu= als >> 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 >>> {me} for non-individual referents. >>> (I have once suggested an interpretation of {P si'e} for other than >>> P<=3D1, 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 unles= s >>> {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 ca= n >> cover more cases. >> >> > > > That is what I wish. > > > > >> 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 become= s 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 >> >> > > 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 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, bec= ause >>>> there are things among them, different from ko'i itself, that do satis= fy >>>> "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 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. (F= or >> my definition, the additional restriction doesn't change anything, becau= se >> everything satisfies it so it's not really any restriction.) >> >> > > > Right. I need (D1') for proper definition of {N mei} for non-individuals. > I was implicitly requiring it as "non-conflict selection of {su'o pa mei}= ", > but it should have been explicit. > > > > >> Non-individual referents are excluded from outer quantified sumti and >>> singular bound variables of official Lojban. (If su'oi, ro'oi etc becom= e >>> 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 referent= s, >>> 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. >> >> > > 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-individual referent related to other non-individual referents with > {me}. Non-individual {lo pa nanba} as well as "a half of" {lo pa nanba} i= s > only an ordinary vertex of an infinite tree constructed with {me}. I said > "a half of" because I don't know an appropriate short expression in > English. Only when a unit 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 thought 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 > design will be more universal. > > > -- > 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. > --=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/d/optout. --047d7bd6ba70c9f71504f6772281 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The question to all involved in this this discussion.
= 1. Has the full resume been recorded anywhere?
2. What is the def= inition of lu'o? Still loi=3Dlu'o ro lo?
3. What's th= e definition of {lu'a}? lu'a lo =3D lo me lo?


2014-02= -26 17:20 GMT+04:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
=


Le mercredi 26 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 06:49:07 UTC+9, x= orxes a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, guska= nt <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Le mardi 25 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 07:59:0= 4 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit=C2=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.



Right.


= =C2=A0
=C2=A0
If {P si'e} were allowed for P>1, {si'e} w= ould have been better than {me} for non-individual referents.=C2=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.=C2=A0
=C2=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.
=C2=A0=C2=A0


That is what I wish.

<= div>
=C2=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=C2=A0



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


=C2=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 =C2=A0:=3D ke'a su'o N mei gi'e nai su'= o N+1 mei=C2=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_.=C2=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".=C2=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"..=C2=A0
Yes.=C2=A0

You= will also need to modify your (D1) to:

=C2=A0(D1&= #39;) 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 &= 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.)
=C2=A0

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


=C2=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=C2= =A0consider that "a half of {lo pa nanba} is not {me lo nanba}".= =C2=A0

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.



The thought of "a half of {lo pa nanba} is also {me lo nan= ba}" is not related to the concept {part of} as long as {lo pa nanba} = is a non-individual referent related to other non-individual referents with= {me}. Non-individual {lo pa nanba} as well as "a half of" {lo pa= nanba} is only an ordinary vertex of an infinite tree constructed with {me= }. I said "a half of" because I don't know an appropriate sho= rt expression in English. Only when a unit is equalized with an individual,= a half of {lo pa nanba} is regarded as {part of}. Actually there is no oth= er method for expressing non-individual quantification; there is no choice = of the words that better express the thought of non-individual with quantif= ication.=C2=A0

If {M si'e} is properly defined so that M>1 is a= ccepted, {lo PA pi broda} and {lo pi PA broda} may represent non-individual= quantification, which are expanded to expressions with {M si'e}. If it= is realized, the language design will be more universal. =C2=A0


--
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.

--
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+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--047d7bd6ba70c9f71504f6772281--