Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1400948010.93944.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <53800942.9030407@lojban.org>
	<CAO7bV+j4=md2oKaN_i6u68YS7hEzjt_iUkqGkiADRCz21NF_Ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<1400948010.93944.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 14:34:02 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cuBS+5bqDuf_fFYid5fRHepXK_S6_9cebqSZ0gZcBgMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135e6308e818a04fa28c089
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a1135e6308e818a04fa28c089
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I haven't slogged through the latest published take on xorlo yet, but have
> several questions/objections to what I currently take to the official line.
> I do think that, at heart, it is the right way to go, but it has inherited
> or accreted a number of doctrines that render it less useful (an absolute
> notion of individuals for one).
>

I don't think xorlo espouses any notion of individuals. xorlo is basically
just this:

                lo broda = zo'e noi ke'a broda

There's nothing about individuals there. It just says that "lo" converts a
selbri into a constant, which is then used as an argument of the selbri in
the bridi in which it appears, as opposed to turning it into a quantifier
that quantifies the bridi in which it appears, which was CLL's take (i.e.
the old lo broda = su'o da poi broda zo'u .... da ....). It also says that
the referent(s) of that constant satisfy "ke'a broda".

Individuals turned up in guskant's recent discussion of inner quantifiers.
The question was, what exactly does the inner quantifier count? One answer
is that it counts the individual referents of the sumti, but then what is
an individual? One circular answer is to say that an individual is whatever
the inner quantifier counts. A possible definition for "individual" is to
say that ko'a is an individual iff ro da poi da me ko'a zo'u ko'a me da.

guskant is not too happy with that answer, because he wants to use inner
quantifiers to count things that may contain other things (in the "me"
sense of contain) which themselves don't count. To me that just amounts to
excluding those other things from the universe of discourse, guskant
prefers to just flag some things in the universe of discourse as countable
and the rest as not. I don't think there's any difference of substance
here, just of presentation. I can't think of a sentence that would change
meaning depending on which metalinguistic explanation one prefers, except
perhaps cryptic stuff like "su'oi da no mei" which for me is necessarily
false and guskant may accept as true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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/d/optout.

--001a1135e6308e818a04fa28c089
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, &#39;John E Clifford&#39; via lojban <span=
 dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-col=
or:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Gra=
nde,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
<div><span>I haven&#39;t slogged through the latest published take on xorlo=
 yet, but have several questions/objections to what I currently take to the=
 official line. I do think that, at heart, it is the right way to go, but i=
t has inherited or accreted a number of doctrines that render it less usefu=
l (an absolute notion of individuals for one).=C2=A0<br>
</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t think=
 xorlo espouses any notion of individuals. xorlo is basically just this:</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 lo broda =3D zo&#39;e noi ke&#39;a broda</div>
<div><br></div><div>There&#39;s nothing about individuals there. It just sa=
ys that &quot;lo&quot; converts a selbri into a constant, which is then use=
d as an argument of the selbri in the bridi in which it appears, as opposed=
 to turning it into a quantifier that quantifies the bridi in which it appe=
ars, which was CLL&#39;s take (i.e. the old lo broda =3D su&#39;o da poi br=
oda zo&#39;u .... da ....). It also says that the referent(s) of that const=
ant satisfy &quot;ke&#39;a broda&quot;.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Individuals turned up in guskant&#39;s recent discussio=
n of inner quantifiers. The question was, what exactly does the inner quant=
ifier count? One answer is that it counts the individual referents of the s=
umti, but then what is an individual? One circular answer is to say that an=
 individual is whatever the inner quantifier counts. A possible definition =
for &quot;individual&quot; is to say that ko&#39;a is an individual iff ro =
da poi da me ko&#39;a zo&#39;u ko&#39;a me da.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>guskant is not too happy with that answer, because he w=
ants to use inner quantifiers to count things that may contain other things=
 (in the &quot;me&quot; sense of contain) which themselves don&#39;t count.=
 To me that just amounts to excluding those other things from the universe =
of discourse, guskant prefers to just flag some things in the universe of d=
iscourse as countable and the rest as not. I don&#39;t think there&#39;s an=
y difference of substance here, just of presentation. I can&#39;t think of =
a sentence that would change meaning depending on which metalinguistic expl=
anation one prefers, except perhaps cryptic stuff like &quot;su&#39;oi da n=
o mei&quot; which for me is necessarily false and guskant may accept as tru=
e.</div>
<div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></di=
v></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--001a1135e6308e818a04fa28c089--