Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 00:39:53 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: jboste <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] unquantified sumti with restrictive relative clauses in xorlo
Message-ID: <20140904043953.GA29601@gonzales>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5vNYLRcllDrimb99"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: ku'a
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: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Recall the following production:

sumti5 <- quantifier? sumti6 [relative-clauses]

I want to understand the semantics of this in the case that there is no
quantifier, and there is a restrictive clause among the relative clauses.
{ko'a poi broda}, in other words.

If there is a quantifier, the semantics are clear - relative clauses restri=
ct
the domain of the quantifier.

In CLL lojban, this is the only case - there is always an (implicit)
quantifier.

Under xorlo, when there are no restrictives we have fairly clear semantics -
the sumti has a plural referent, any incidentals give side-clauses in separ=
ate
scope, and any {goi} clauses assign sumbasti. A singular quantifier quantif=
ies
over those individuals among the referents which satisfy the conjunction of
the restrictive clause predicates.

Note that the "lo broda =3D=3D zo'e noi broda" dogma reduces the=20
    sumti6 <- LE sumti-tail KU?
production to the above one.

Nothing in the documentation on xorlo that I've found gives semantics in the
unquantified restricted case, although it has seen much usage.

I can see six broad approaches to interpreting such expressions, i.e. those=
 of
the form {ko'a poi broda}.

(i) Consider it an error, or just ignore any restrictives.

(ii) Declare that in this case (and this case alone), there is an implicit
    quantifier after all.

(iii) Have it pick out some referents such that they satisfy the restrictiv=
es:
    ko'a poi broda -> zo'e noi me ko'a gi'e broda

(iv) Have it pick out those referents which each satisfy broda:
    ko'a poi broda ->
        zo'e noi ro da zo'u go da me ke'a go ge da me ko'a gi broda

(v) Something along the lines of (iv), but more in line with plural logic /
    mereology, perhaps by requiring the obvious maximality condition, i.e.
    ko'a poi broda ->
        zo'e noi ge ge me ko'a gi broda gi ro da poi ge ge ke'a xi re me ke=
'a gi
        ke'a me ko'a gi ke'a broda cu du ke'a
    , perhaps making it an error if there is no unique such maximum, or
    perhaps taking all the maxima together (i.e. taking the join).

(vi) Something along the lines of (v), but with no formal rule - just an id=
ea
    that the intended referents of {ko'a poi broda} are picked out among the
    referents of {ko'a} by virtue of their brodaing.

The usage I've seen could fit any of (iii)-(vi), I think. So, taking various
degrees of liberty, could CLL's use of restrictives - although of course th=
ey
had implicit quantifiers, so are not really relevant.

Martin

--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlQH7RkACgkQULC7OLX7LNbcAwCg0fz8TbGgUwMguUMEr9IkSZcK
SZ0Ani0xKafAv32VrWCULF+5EXqmCFbO
=b446
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5vNYLRcllDrimb99--