Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:57:45 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Cc: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
Message-ID: <20140604215745.GM19383@gonzales>
References: <20140525194906.GA885@gonzales>
 <f397dab1-5b57-4798-9caa-f40e5f91d6f9@googlegroups.com>
 <20140527025346.GJ885@gonzales>
 <cfe0fb91-19c6-4af4-8f76-53c033003331@googlegroups.com>
 <20140527204250.GL885@gonzales>
 <462524b8-28de-49f3-a938-4cc42543c28f@googlegroups.com>
 <20140528171446.GN885@gonzales>
 <e1915312-81d3-46dc-9f4c-cbdf00f3b5d9@googlegroups.com>
 <20140530032434.GA20211@gonzales>
 <e4712b77-4de0-455a-9124-37edea5a599a@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GoZzJvFfKjxI3RhA"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e4712b77-4de0-455a-9124-37edea5a599a@googlegroups.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: zi'o
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--GoZzJvFfKjxI3RhA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2014-05-31 at 03:19 -0700 - guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:

> Le vendredi 30 mai 2014 12:24:38 UTC+9, Martin Bays a =E9crit :
> > Meanwhile, a question. Under these semantics, the second (and only the=
=20
> > second!) {zo'e} in=20
> >     ro zo'e zo'e broda=20
> > depends functionally on the quantifier. But in=20
> >     ro zo'e ro zo'e broda=20
> > it doesn't make sense to say that each {zo'e} depends functionally on=
=20
> > the quantifier on the other. This seems to complicate matters?=20
>=20
> I have no idea about that. Because the quantification is implicit in {zo'=
e}=20
> without outer quantifier, I have a feeling that Lojban users would be les=
s=20
> attentive to the span of {zo'e} than that of {ro zo'e}. The difference of=
=20
> their usage is quite distinct, and it would not be very complicated.

Whether or not the problem would be ignored in practice, this does seem
to be an obstruction to a semantic theory of the kind proposed - one
which interprets {zo'e} in a scope-independent way without interpreting
it as a constant.

I'm not seeing a way out.

Martin

--GoZzJvFfKjxI3RhA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlOPllkACgkQULC7OLX7LNa+sgCgrJXJ94LzxYrcv8Qp4iWNaDbe
nR8An2GQZcgxLEyjMf7LXMem/TrIj7Kj
=TCyh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--GoZzJvFfKjxI3RhA--