Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.90.89;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Balningau: The Great Update
References: <53800942.9030407@lojban.org> <CAO7bV+j4=md2oKaN_i6u68YS7hEzjt_iUkqGkiADRCz21NF_Ww@mail.gmail.com> <1400948010.93944.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2cuBS+5bqDuf_fFYid5fRHepXK_S6_9cebqSZ0gZcBgMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cuBS+5bqDuf_fFYid5fRHepXK_S6_9cebqSZ0gZcBgMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <53D0F569-A434-4953-9A1A-3F8D2001A8BB@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 14:05:11 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
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=Apple-Mail-E37BAA5B-E87C-4E7A-A744-D224290B695A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam_score: 2.1
X-Spam_score_int: 21
X-Spam_bar: ++
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Interesting, given the arduous history of 'lo'. Assuming that
    'zo'e' is here used in the sense of "the contextually specified thing", which
    is a change (restriction) from CLL, this 'lo' no longer does the job that
    led to the argument for its acceptance, since 'lo broda cu broda' is now
   a tautology, unless I've missed something crucial. 'lo broda' was meant, in
    most stages of the argument, including the last (I thought) to cover the
   semantic range of English "a broda", "the broda", "brodas" and "broda" in
   the non definite senses. But at least the last of these may include in the
    referent of 'lo broda' things which are not broda in any sense, but rather,
    for example, broda bits. (There was broda all over my bumper after I plowed
    into a herd of brodas.) This possibility comes out in the technical definition
    of 'lo broda' as the salient node in the upward lattice of the field of jest
    (me) on the set of brodas (in the domain). Of course, this possibility does
    also rely on there not being any absolute individuals, since me here extends
    below things which are brodas (individual brodas still have members, they
    just aren't brodas). [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (2.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                             domain
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
  2.2 FORGED_MSGID_YAHOO     Message-ID is forged, (yahoo.com)

--Apple-Mail-E37BAA5B-E87C-4E7A-A744-D224290B695A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Interesting, given the arduous history of 'lo'.  Assuming that 'zo'e' is he=
re used in the sense of "the contextually specified thing", which is a chan=
ge (restriction) from CLL, this 'lo' no longer does the job that led to the=
 argument for its acceptance, since 'lo broda cu broda' is now a tautology,=
 unless I've missed something crucial.  'lo broda' was meant, in most stage=
s of the argument, including the last (I thought) to cover the semantic ran=
ge of English "a broda", "the broda", "brodas" and "broda" in the non defin=
ite senses.  But at least the last of these may include in the referent of =
'lo broda' things which are not broda in any sense, but rather, for example=
, broda bits. (There was broda all over my bumper after I plowed into a her=
d of brodas.)   This possibility comes out in the technical definition of '=
lo broda' as the salient node in the upward lattice of the field of jest (m=
e) on the set of brodas (in the domain).  Of course, this possibility does =
also rely on there not being any absolute individuals, since me here extend=
s below things which are brodas (individual brodas still have members, they=
 just aren't brodas).

Sent from my iPad

On May 24, 2014, at 12:34, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote=
:

>=20
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@goo=
glegroups.com> wrote:
> I haven't slogged through the latest published take on xorlo yet, but hav=
e several questions/objections to what I currently take to the official lin=
e. I do think that, at heart, it is the right way to go, but it has inherit=
ed or accreted a number of doctrines that render it less useful (an absolut=
e notion of individuals for one).=20
>=20
> I don't think xorlo espouses any notion of individuals. xorlo is basicall=
y just this:
>=20
>                 lo broda =3D zo'e noi ke'a broda
>=20
> 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 i=
n 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 =3D su'o da poi broda zo'u .... da ....). It also says tha=
t the referent(s) of that constant satisfy "ke'a broda".
>=20
> Individuals turned up in guskant's recent discussion of inner quantifiers=
. The question was, what exactly does the inner quantifier count? One answe=
r 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 whateve=
r 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.=
=20
>=20
> 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" sens=
e of contain) which themselves don't count. To me that just amounts to excl=
uding those other things from the universe of discourse, guskant prefers to=
 just flag some things in the universe of discourse as countable and the re=
st 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 dependi=
ng 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.
>=20
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>=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=
 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.

--=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.

--Apple-Mail-E37BAA5B-E87C-4E7A-A744-D224290B695A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<html><head></head><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div><div>Interesting, given t=
he arduous history of 'lo'. &nbsp;Assuming that 'zo'e' is here used in the =
sense of "the contextually specified thing", which is a change (restriction=
) from CLL, this 'lo' no longer does the job that led to the argument for i=
ts acceptance, since 'lo broda cu broda' is now a tautology, unless I've mi=
ssed something crucial. &nbsp;'lo broda' was meant, in most stages of the a=
rgument, including the last (I thought) to cover the semantic range of Engl=
ish "a broda", "the broda", "brodas" and "broda" in the non definite senses=
. &nbsp;But at least the last of these may include in the referent of 'lo b=
roda' things which are not broda in any sense, but rather, for example, bro=
da bits. (There was broda all over my bumper after I plowed into a herd of =
brodas.) &nbsp; This possibility comes out in the technical definition of '=
lo broda' as the salient node in the upward lattice of the field of jest (m=
e) on the set of brodas (in the domain). &nbsp;Of course, this possibility =
does also rely on there not being any absolute individuals, since me here e=
xtends below things which are brodas (individual brodas still have members,=
 they just aren't brodas).</div><div><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On=
 May 24, 2014, at 12:34, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambi=
as@gmail.com">jjllambias@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><=
blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:13 PM, 'John E Clif=
ford' via lojban <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroup=
s.com" target=3D"_blank">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't slogged through the latest published take on xorlo yet=
, but have several questions/objections to what I currently take to the off=
icial line. I do think that, at heart, it is the right way to go, but it ha=
s inherited or accreted a number of doctrines that render it less useful (a=
n absolute notion of individuals for one).&nbsp;<br>
</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think xor=
lo espouses any notion of individuals. xorlo is basically just this:</div><=
div><br></div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; =
lo broda =3D zo'e noi ke'a broda</div>
<div><br></div><div>There's nothing about individuals there. It just says t=
hat "lo" converts a selbri into a constant, which is then used as an argume=
nt 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 =3D su'o da poi broda zo'u .... da ....)=
. It also says that the referent(s) of that constant satisfy "ke'a broda".<=
/div>
<div><br></div><div>Individuals turned up in guskant's recent discussion of=
 inner quantifiers. The question was, what exactly does the inner quantifie=
r 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 ind=
ividual 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.&nbsp;</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 "me" sense of contain) which themselves don't count. To me that ju=
st amounts to excluding those other things from the universe of discourse, =
guskant prefers to just flag some things in the universe of discourse as co=
untable and the rest as not. I don't think there's any difference of substa=
nce here, just of presentation. I can't think of a sentence that would chan=
ge meaning depending on which metalinguistic explanation one prefers, excep=
t perhaps cryptic stuff like "su'oi da no mei" which for me is necessarily =
false and guskant may accept as true.</div>
<div><br></div><div>mu'o mi'e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" 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>
</div></blockquote></div><div></div></body></html>

<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 />

--Apple-Mail-E37BAA5B-E87C-4E7A-A744-D224290B695A--