Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c03::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c03::232;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140904222640.GD29601@gonzales>
References: <20140904043953.GA29601@gonzales>
	<54083D4C.5000809@gmx.de>
	<20140904222640.GD29601@gonzales>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:41:45 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2eUfFe6GXXkh8n1Ej7CyAsgLYGbrxJrH9+ZXj6M2=K6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] unquantified sumti with restrictive relative clauses in xorlo
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=001a11c2bb1e6f1af2050269194f
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a11c2bb1e6f1af2050269194f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

>
>   if
> {ko'a poi broda} is a referring expression in itself, one might expect
> {ro ko'a poi broda} to mean
>     (1)  {ro da poi me ko'a poi broda},
> but instead we have a separate rule which makes it
>     (2)  {ro da poi me ko'a gi'e broda},
> and (1) and (2) agree only in case (iv).
>
> They almost agree in case (v), and I'm tempted to amend case (v)
> to have it give {ro ko'a poi broda} meaning (1) rather than meaning (2).


I do think (1) is right and (2) is just a special case. The BPFK formal
definition has (2), but I think that was just an oversight, not fully
considering non-distributive predicates. The general definition suggests
it's (1).  With the assignment "ko'a goi lo tadni" for example, I wouldn't
have a problem with "no ko'a poi pu sruri lo dinju ba se sfasa" being
meaningful.


> PA broda noi brode
> >       PA da (to ri broda toi) poi ke'a broda
> >
> > Some of this depends on {ri}'s ability to repeat {da} and quantified
> > terms. Writing {PA da (to da broda toi)} would be weird, as the {da}
> > could just as well be a new variable.
>
> Yeah, I don't think that's really legitimate. Pretending that {ri} can
> pick up the {da} at all (and actually I believe it just skips over it to
> the previous sumti), I'd say the bracketed phrase there has an unbound
> ("donkey") variable, and we should either consider it an error or
> universally quantify it out to give
>     {PA broda noi brode} -> {PA da poi broda zi'e noi brode}
>     -> {to da brode toi PA da poi broda} *
>     -> {to ro da brode toi PA da poi broda}
> or, perhaps, remembering the domain of the variable and only universally
> quantifying over that, giving
>     {to ro da poi broda brode toi PA da poi broda} ;
> but that's a bit of a pain in practice, since the clause giving the
> domain could itself mention unbound variables, and you have to recurse.
>

"PA broda noi brode" and "PA da noi brode" are just weird, since they don't
provide any referents for the relative clause to be about. They're almost
as bad as "zi'o noi brode". When they are used it's because we are thinking
of quantifiers as determiners rather than as pure quantifiers.

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.

--001a11c2bb1e6f1af2050269194f
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 Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>=C2=A0 if<br>
{ko&#39;a poi broda} is a referring expression in itself, one might expect<=
br>
{ro ko&#39;a poi broda} to mean<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (1)=C2=A0 {ro da poi me ko&#39;a poi broda},<br>
but instead we have a separate rule which makes it<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (2)=C2=A0 {ro da poi me ko&#39;a gi&#39;e broda},<br>
and (1) and (2) agree only in case (iv).<br>
<br>
They almost agree in case (v), and I&#39;m tempted to amend case (v)<br>
to have it give {ro ko&#39;a poi broda} meaning (1) rather than meaning (2)=
.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I do think (1) is right and (2) is just a=
 special case. The BPFK formal definition has (2), but I think that was jus=
t an oversight, not fully considering non-distributive predicates. The gene=
ral definition suggests it&#39;s (1). =C2=A0With the assignment &quot;ko=
9;a goi lo tadni&quot; for example, I wouldn&#39;t have a problem with &quo=
t;no ko&#39;a poi pu sruri lo dinju ba se sfasa&quot; being meaningful.</di=
v><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>
&gt; PA broda noi brode<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0PA da (to ri broda toi) poi ke&#39;a broda<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Some of this depends on {ri}&#39;s ability to repeat {da} and quantifi=
ed<br>
&gt; terms. Writing {PA da (to da broda toi)} would be weird, as the {da}<b=
r>
&gt; could just as well be a new variable.<br>
<br>
</span>Yeah, I don&#39;t think that&#39;s really legitimate. Pretending tha=
t {ri} can<br>
pick up the {da} at all (and actually I believe it just skips over it to<br=
>
the previous sumti), I&#39;d say the bracketed phrase there has an unbound<=
br>
(&quot;donkey&quot;) variable, and we should either consider it an error or=
<br>
universally quantify it out to give<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 {PA broda noi brode} -&gt; {PA da poi broda zi&#39;e noi brod=
e}<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -&gt; {to da brode toi PA da poi broda} *<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 -&gt; {to ro da brode toi PA da poi broda}<br>
or, perhaps, remembering the domain of the variable and only universally<br=
>
quantifying over that, giving<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 {to ro da poi broda brode toi PA da poi broda} ;<br>
but that&#39;s a bit of a pain in practice, since the clause giving the<br>
domain could itself mention unbound variables, and you have to recurse.<br>=
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>&quot;PA broda noi brode&quot; and &quot;P=
A da noi brode&quot; are just weird, since they don&#39;t provide any refer=
ents for the relative clause to be about. They&#39;re almost as bad as &quo=
t;zi&#39;o noi brode&quot;. When they are used it&#39;s because we are thin=
king of quantifiers as determiners rather than as pure quantifiers.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div>=C2=A0</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 />

--001a11c2bb1e6f1af2050269194f--